Slashdot Mirror
Study: Past Climate Change Was Caused by Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere
Chipmunk100 writes Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere. Researchers have found that circulation of the ocean plays an equally important role in regulating the earth's climate. The study results were published the journal Science (abstract. "Our study suggests that changes in the storage of heat in the deep ocean could be as important to climate change as other hypotheses – tectonic activity or a drop in the carbon dioxide level – and likely led to one of the major climate transitions of the past 30 million years," said one of the authors."
... political. It would be nice to just talk about the science and mute all the political gamesmanship.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Every time an idiot posts a "scientists are just NOW realizing that..." post we're seeing Dunning Kruger in action.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
link
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014. Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature. 18 years of no warming is just temperature, but 6 months of warmer is climate.
No one believe your lies anymore, give up, you are the only delusional ones that belive yourselves.
The paper in the OP is about a change in ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. The NASA papers are looking at the current warming.
I note that if you read the abstract of the paper that you first link to, the findings are the net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W/m2 from 2005 to 2013 which does not, as the press release implies, inconsistent with gobal warming, which is estimated to be about 0.9 W/m2.
And I note that your second paper, while there is a 150 year cycle, Greenland is also losing mass on top of that. Chart from this page.
I believe Mr. Hansen left shortly after this.
About nine months later.
I call myself a classic liberal... it actually has meaning compared to the common nomenclature used in modern politics... neither of the two major parties has a lock on conservative or liberal thinking. In fact, they both would restrict your personal rights and freedoms, just different ones... neither party is particularly liberal, except with other people's money.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
No.
And that fact you even try to go anywhere with that canard shows just how loose your concept of history is.
Saying they were all democrats is as relevent as saying they were all Christians, ie, not relevent. The KKK was oriented around fear/hatred of the outsider. IE, xenophobia, people who arent "us". And trying ot use it to paint the modern Demcoratic party based on your misreading of history is pathetic.
Read and be enlightened, 100 years of political history in 5 minutes:
Also happening around the turn of the century was the advancement of "Progressivism". It was becoming popular. It was largely in answer to Communism/Socialism. Like them it had its roots in opposition and pushback to the unfettered excesses of capitalism and the Gilded Age, but unlike them it did not seek to replace capitalism root and branch, but instead to simply curb and restrain its excesses. Both parties flirted with progressivism, running many candidiates who were unabashed Progressives who sought to curb the "fat cat bankers" and "bust the trusts" (that's how bad the Gilded Age was, that even the parties found common ground against them). One of the most famous progressives was Teddy Roosevelt.
Both parties had had candidates who wre "for the common man", and both parties also had folks who sidled up to business interests. Much like today. But the democratic party had a fundamental fracture within it. There were basically two wings within the Democratic party: the wing that was about "the common man" and became more and more liberal over time, and the wing that had more in common with the Tea Party. That wing was the Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats, and they were very very conservative in ideaology.
As time went on within the Republican party progressivism died out, such that by the time of the New Deal, barely 20 years after Teddy Roosevelt, they were completely opposed to it, and mostly represented business interests.
But the Democratic party held onto progressivism. It became the defacto party of the common man, the little guy. That helped keep the fracture in the party from coming to a head because since Reconstruction the South was still reeling from economic hardship ("someone told us Wall Street fell, but we were so poor we couldn't tell"). The Solid South stayed democratic for a long time.
But the thing about Progressivism is it is a naturally supporter of Civil Rights. And that would start to prove to be too much for the Southern Democrats. And eventually it was this fracture that Nixon exploited in the Southern Strategy that basically split the democratic party in the south, and even nationwide. The segregationist minded democrats nationwide but particularly of the south, along with the dixiecrats (a seperate party by now), went Republican. And in the following years the few moderates and liberals remaining in the Republican party would be pushed out over the new few decades by the Religious Right and the Reagan Revolution.
So this whole "the Democrats created the KKK" thing is at best a misleading misdirection and revision of history, and at worst a myth.
More: http://quietmike.org/2013/12/0...
The issue here is the fact that the historic context is completely missed by conservatives, and often just plain embellished. Yes, in 1868 the Democrats were the racist party. However, what also must be known is that the Democrats were also the more conservative party at the time. The Republican Party, believe it or not, were the more liberal party. From the Civil War up until about 1948, the Southern Democrats were the most conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
[..]Yes, in historic perspective the Democrats were a more racist (conservative) party. However, I emphasize conservative. Liberals did not found the KKK, nor did they support segregation. By social standards, these were more conservative minded people at least in regards to race. These were not leftist
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Um....Im guesing you cant read.
The split wasnt along party lines.
The split was geographic. Idiot.
A majority of BOTH parties voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of '64.
The vote totals from wiki, --that you linked-- :
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As for lincoln, he wasnt speaking against socialism or liberalism. He couldnt be, because he and his party WERE THE LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY.
But again, the liberal/conservative split back then had more to do with geographical location than party lines. Northerners in general, of either party, were more liberal than those in the South.
The only ones trying to pull a switcharoo are peiople like you still trying to paint the dems as racists while ignoring the 150 years of history between then and now.
I direct you to the piece I just finished to explain it to another uneducated historical newbie like yourself: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.