Also living in the Pacific Northdamp (not so wet anymore here), I can say for certain that our weather has changed. The last 5+ years we've gotten 1/2 or less of our average rainfall, and the last 2 years we've barely had a winter. Yesterday it was in the upper 70's, even low 80's here, and it's been in the upper 60's to lower 70's most of this winter, and a large portion of last winter. Those are our normal summer temperatures, and it's mid Feb?!

When I moved here near 20 years ago, we were in a 'normal' pattern which meant raining about 1/2 the days between November and March, and temps in the 40's including some freezing. It's easy to notice when the river that's usually full of fish in Sept/Oct is now a knee high creek until Feb.

Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius (2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).

Melting point of steel is around the temps he's talking about. Boiling point is a little higher.

I remember once since 1977 where (I recall) the snow volume was similar. But not combined with such mild temps.

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING MAURICE ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Laissez les bons temps rouler.

I hope you enjoy yours.

I was referencing the ensemble models the IPCC used in their latest report. I'm largely assuming it includes the latest knowledge on the subject. To me the more encouraging thing is direct measurement of energy imbalance being available to measure models against. The truest measure of the overall greenhouse effect is just this. With it, so long as models accurately track and predict trends in the energy imbalance we can be confident they more or less have things right. That said, the IPCC notes there has been no trend in instrumental data since 2000. Models have been universally projecting a modest upward trend. This again gives hope and reason to believe the lower end projections are the more likely to be accurate. This correlates well with how the original 1990 projections have mapped to actual temp over the last 25 years too. All that is to say that scientifically those saying we should panic need as much slapping into place as those insisting nothing is happening at all.

No. Once it's been vaporized, the leftovers have no psychedelics left. The THC and CBN, along with most other volatiles are vaporized at relatively low temps, so you're left with cellulose and other non active plant material. You could bake with it, but it won't get you 'high' a second time.

TL:RD: Flush mix tap for few seconds after not being used for hours. Count to three.

I would say that it is still advisable to flush out the stagnant water from pipes before drinking the water. Not a lot, until you feel the temperature to change. Reason is that while the warm water is now sanitary, it is still warm. Warm stagnant water goes bad pretty quickly, the pipes are NOT clean on the inside. If you have ever seen water mains pipes, you would probably boil your water, brit filter it and most likely perform an exorcision. It's bad, it is really really bad.. The main reason why the water stays drinkable is movement. Moving water is safe, the bacteria that lives on moving water is mostly harmless to us. But 15C to 22C is called "the death zone"; bacteria that thrives on moist conditions, between those temps is the most deadly we can find. E.Coli, Botulinum etc. all explode with those condition. So you take warm water to wash up that last tea, it stays in the pipes and you get a nice shot of bacteria first thing in the morning. Or you keep the tap on for ten seconds, flush out the main colony and then drink a fresh cold water; i'm sure this little trick will add years in to your life (just the fresh glass of water and the feeling we get from that should do the trick..)

But the days of flushing the whole length of pipe several times a day is unnecessary. Only important when it has sit for hours after running hot water thru that particular piece of pipe, maybe just few meters or few seconds. And even then most likely it's 100% safe but the gunk that sits in the pipes is DIRTY.. ffs, we got some wooden main lines still in use in the old town (built around circa 1600).. BTW, the water from those wooden pipes.. excellent, specially in the winter as it is just super cold, totally clear of all bacteria, it's like spring water. But that is mostly because they have been in use for hundreds of year, all the time with moving, cold, clean water running thru them. It's bacterial colonies work with us cleaning it.

Compare that to the other pipe system running thru our homes here: the main heating water that heats our homes, that water is so toxic that every cut you have while working with them, just a drop and you will get infected. It takes minutes and the cut will swell up. And the only really difference is that the heating system is on closed loop, with warm water and it sits for half a year stagnated.. It is still "clean" water, looks clean, doesn't smell. But that stuff is equal to biological warfare..

Why i know this? Well, i'm ex-junkie. Knowing what kind of water you inject to your veins is pretty fucking important if you wanna stay alive.

What an idiot. Yes, the temps have been up for a while. Just like we've had mini-ice ages and mini-bumps throughout history. Look at geology reports (oh, wait, he's only a mechanical engineer.) Nothing new here, folks. Yes, we're pumping out carbon dioxide. So did volcanos in the distant past. So what? We've got a lot of buffer called the ocean. Lastly, Dr. Nye, two coincident facts don't show causality. Oh, you wear a bow-tie, you must be smart. See? Classic example of two facts that are coincident but not related. Except for the you're being smart part. That part isn't true. Michael Crichton had it right in State of Fear.

Is he trying to say that the temp on Mars has been raising at the same rate? I haven't seen such data, but it does deserve a little more context before everyone hops aboard the hate train.

WOW just WOW! Their own data and constituents? Who the hell is relating the temp on mars to the temp on earth?! It still amazes me that people like this get put into positions of authority over stuff that have no flippin clue about!

I'm not trying to be a hater, but I do want people to get what they deserve...and in this instance I believe those that ignore and deny that AGW is real and in part their fault (and every thing I read and all actual scientists I talk to agree that nearly ALL scientists agree that AGW is real and happening now, contrary to your claim that only 4% agree) deserve to have their offspring eat them alive when the food runs out due to their denial based actions.
Really, you claim you personally spoke to "most climate scientists"?!? So now I know for certain that YOU are just a bold faced liar, because that's an impossibility. ;-)
But I already did my hair and put my party dress on, I'm crashing your party! I'll hide among the other scientists and you'll never notice me until the lampshade hat goes on and I climb onto the bar to dance badly to Bolero.
I am 100% certain that either you or Obama has made a mistake here...4% is an exaggeration of the number of scientists that DON'T theorize that AGW is real, not the other way around. Someone got the wires crossed.
It's a poor argument, when presented with facts that are contrary to your theory, to reply with 'who cares what you think'...but perhaps the best argument against my statements that you have?
I do walk to work, in my own yard. I have a vegi garden and an orchard. I do eat mostly just my own vegis, but not completely, there's also chicken and pork that I don't raise myself (but source locally). My beef intake is miniscule. I drive minimally, well under 5K per year (still adding to the problem, agreed, but far less than average), I don't have children (the best and most useful thing one can do for the massively overpopulated planet IMO) and try at every opportunity to convince others to not have them either, I do have solar panels AND hot water tubes, I do grow >90% of my (and my wife's) food. Most of those things I do because they save me money, because as I said, I have no personal incentive to "save the planet" for more than 40+- years, and I also don't think it's possible at this point. I can try to not add to the problem as much as possible, but at the same time I don't let my methods rule or ruin my life. It's my opinion that the time to minimize AGW was in the 80's, when it was completely ignored, and that now it's far too late to minimize things, the system reacts slowly and the last century of CO2 (and others) will continue to effect the system long after we stop adding more...and I think we're already to the point where that unavoidable rise in temp will melt methalhydrates, giving us boiling oceans on fire and at least another 5 deg of near instant temperature rise (likely far more). The tipping point was back when we could avoid that, and I have been convinced by data that that time came and went long ago and now we're hosed.
I will concede that the ONN is a GREAT place for 'news'.

Best - Bone in Rib Eye temp - whatever you want but most places wont go above medium. For a real treat on a great piece of meat try pittsburgh style

Worst - (Flavor wise) Filet Mignon Why so many people order this is beyond me. Yes its tender, but thats it. Might as well just get a burger.

No it doesn't at all, if you spray the liquid where the bar meets the tube, there's plenty of space to get it in there right onto the part that does the locking...then one good hammer blow and that's my bike! It's only the lock bar, not the entire mechanism that needs to break, and you have direct access to it where the bar penetrates the tube.
It also looks like you could easily spray into the slot below the 'keyway' onto the lock itself...and there would be way more room inside to fill with liquid. Worse, it looks like the end caps are anodized aluminum, which won't even need a liquid, just a good hammer! (maybe that's wrong, but it looks that way)
Neat lock, but totally breakable....like just about any lock. A better plan might be a lock with a temp sensor and wireless to alert you theft is immanent.

Actually, 165° is the ideal temp, not 190. And if you're super snobby, it's exactly 172°. I've even heard people ask for that at Starbucks . . . . Yeah, dumbass. Their coffee sucks to begin with so I don't care if you want it "ideal temperature". Plus, they had been warned numerous times and had been told my OSHA to turn it down or someone will burn. Not to mention, when you repeatedly have a problem with stupid people, it's cheaper to just comply. I mean, it's McDonalds, they already dumb everything down anyway. Ever tasted their food?