No one has ever claimed Greenland wasn't "mostly ice". There was a thriving Viking community during the Medieval Warm Period which was abandoned (peacefully, no wiping out by any "natives") when the climate became (much) colder at the start of the Little Ice Age.
No, it did not contradict anything I wrote. You seem to be quite confused as to the temperatures during its colonization and when the Norse left due to the switch into a much colder climate. Please read the links I posted.
Why are you under the impression that mid-14th century had anything to do when Greenland was warm, and the farm was built?
Why is it important for you to deny known climatic history?
Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today. This means that when the Vikings first arrived, the Greenland name would make sense. But by the 14th century, maximum summer temperatures in Greenland had dropped.
The halving of block rewards (always every four years) has no relation to changes of difficulty (changes depending on total hashrate to keep block intervals regular).
"Through YouGov, the company conducted a representative survey of over 1,000 respondents"... no, on two accounts. 1) Self-selected survey (YouGov) and 2) 1000 respondents aren't statistically representative for the US population
Elizabeth Muller, Executive Director of Berkeley Earth, said, “We have compelling scientific evidence that global warming is real and human caused, but much of what is reported as ‘climate change’ is exaggerated. Headlines that claim storms, droughts, floods, and temperature variability are increasing, are not based on normal scientific standards. We are likely to know better in the upcoming decades, but for now, the results that are most solidly established are that the temperature is increasing and that the increase is caused by human greenhouse emissions. It is certainly true that the impacts of global warming are still too subtle for most people to notice in their everyday lives.”
Hotel room at The Mirage just last week: $79 (yes, nice rooms. If you want to go all out on a suite I recommend the Hard Rock Towers) Absolutely awesome ~$70 steaks: The Homestead at Caesar's Palace Really good breakfast buffet: The Wynn (~$25 or so I think, was a few years ago I stayed there)... also, I enjoyed the Blue Man Group in 2008. YMMV.
I know, wasn't it? There's so much talk about how the current warmth is on the verge of releasing vast amount of methane in the arctic which will give rise to a positive feedback loop and... problems.
The counter point is simple: If that's true it should've happened 8000 years ago.
You keep claiming that same falsehood in several posts now. In a discussion referencing peer reviewed literature it's bad form for you to post your own guesswork and claiming the science is wrong. The 3-9 degrees from K&K 2004 is not compared to "ice age" temperature but to the modern period.
Please try to have a serious discussion. I've cited the actual paper which supports to number "up to 9 degrees". If you want to claim that there's a scientific error in the peer reviewed literature I can promise you'll have to do better than "Wikipedia gives... ".
"According to geomorphologic analysis (Koshkarova and Koshkarov, 2004) in north-central Siberia, the HCO warm event consisted of a winter warming of 3–9 C and a summer warming of 2–6 C compared with the modern period."
(That's Aizen et.al 2016 citing the paper I referenced, K and K 2004)
As written in another post in this thread, no, that's not what the science says about that methane. It's from before last glacial stage (or rather, it owes its existence to that glacial stage).
I think you must be the same anonymous coward who made a similar erroneous statement in a different post in this thread.
This is how the paper was cited by Aizen et. al (2016):
According to geomorphologic analysis (Koshkarova and Koshkarov, 2004) in north-central Siberia, the HCO warm event consisted of a winter warming of 3–9 C and a summer warming of 2–6 C compared with the modern period
Please don't post falsehoods based in what you want the paper to say, and not what it says. It doesn't help the discussion.
This is how that paper was cited by Aizen et. al (2016):
According to geomorphologic analysis (Koshkarova and Koshkarov, 2004) in north-central Siberia, the HCO warm event consisted of a winter warming of 3–9 C and a summer warming of 2–6 C compared with the modern period
Have you read the paper - or what do you base your claim about what it says upon? You know, regarding "derailing".
Are you suggestion we're soon going to be overrun by cows? Of course the only claimed worry is that the tundra is suddenly going to create a runaway warming scenario where additional warming will release more methane.
I suggest debating the actual points made instead. Apparently no sharply rising releases of methane happened during the Holocene Climatic Optimum - because it's still there.
I'm sorry, are you claiming that methane emissions (while cold) caused the transition from glacial to interglacial stage?
Also, I have not provided evidence for something I haven't claimed. Please follow the logic: If methane emissions from a warming arctic cause runaway warming, why did it not happen when the arctic was warmer than now 8000 years ago?
Slashdot Mirror
If you claim that a fully functioning HoloDeck is the only "true" VR then yes, I would agree.
It's very unlikely that we will see AAA VR titles any time soon
Resident Evil 7
Dirt Rally
both on PSVR
No one has ever claimed Greenland wasn't "mostly ice". There was a thriving Viking community during the Medieval Warm Period which was abandoned (peacefully, no wiping out by any "natives") when the climate became (much) colder at the start of the Little Ice Age.
No, it did not contradict anything I wrote. You seem to be quite confused as to the temperatures during its colonization and when the Norse left due to the switch into a much colder climate. Please read the links I posted.
Why are you under the impression that mid-14th century had anything to do when Greenland was warm, and the farm was built?
Why is it important for you to deny known climatic history?
Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today. This means that when the Vikings first arrived, the Greenland name would make sense. But by the 14th century, maximum summer temperatures in Greenland had dropped.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
"ice sheets move"
Are you disputing the well known warmer arctic temperatures during the Viking era? And if so, why do you deny known historic climate?
Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today.
(Erik did name it Greenland since it sounded attractive, but it still was green. Greener than today)
http://news.nationalgeographic...
No.
Case in point: Viking farms built ~1000 years ago are now being uncovered by the melting ice. Thus, the ice wasn't there when they were built.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05...
The halving of block rewards (always every four years) has no relation to changes of difficulty (changes depending on total hashrate to keep block intervals regular).
"Through YouGov, the company conducted a representative survey of over 1,000 respondents" ... no, on two accounts. 1) Self-selected survey (YouGov) and 2) 1000 respondents aren't statistically representative for the US population
Only invisible if you are one eyed and blind.
... or a climate scientist?
Elizabeth Muller, Executive Director of Berkeley Earth, said, “We have compelling scientific evidence that global warming is real and human caused, but much of what is reported as ‘climate change’ is exaggerated. Headlines that claim storms, droughts, floods, and temperature variability are increasing, are not based on normal scientific standards. We are likely to know better in the upcoming decades, but for now, the results that are most solidly established are that the temperature is increasing and that the increase is caused by human greenhouse emissions. It is certainly true that the impacts of global warming are still too subtle for most people to notice in their everyday lives.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/a-sec...
Hotel room at The Mirage just last week: $79 (yes, nice rooms. If you want to go all out on a suite I recommend the Hard Rock Towers) ... also, I enjoyed the Blue Man Group in 2008. YMMV.
Absolutely awesome ~$70 steaks: The Homestead at Caesar's Palace
Really good breakfast buffet: The Wynn (~$25 or so I think, was a few years ago I stayed there)
Most 1st or 2nd year calendar CS assignments would fail in the real world though. It is that hard.
http://infiniteundo.com/post/2...
http://infiniteundo.com/post/2...
I know, wasn't it? There's so much talk about how the current warmth is on the verge of releasing vast amount of methane in the arctic which will give rise to a positive feedback loop and ... problems.
The counter point is simple: If that's true it should've happened 8000 years ago.
You keep claiming that same falsehood in several posts now. In a discussion referencing peer reviewed literature it's bad form for you to post your own guesswork and claiming the science is wrong. The 3-9 degrees from K&K 2004 is not compared to "ice age" temperature but to the modern period.
Please try to have a serious discussion. I've cited the actual paper which supports to number "up to 9 degrees". If you want to claim that there's a scientific error in the peer reviewed literature I can promise you'll have to do better than "Wikipedia gives ... ".
"According to geomorphologic analysis (Koshkarova and Koshkarov, 2004) in north-central Siberia, the HCO warm event consisted of a winter warming of 3–9 C and a summer warming of 2–6 C compared with the modern period. "
(That's Aizen et.al 2016 citing the paper I referenced, K and K 2004)
As written in another post in this thread, no, that's not what the science says about that methane. It's from before last glacial stage (or rather, it owes its existence to that glacial stage).
I think you must be the same anonymous coward who made a similar erroneous statement in a different post in this thread.
This is how the paper was cited by Aizen et. al (2016):
According to geomorphologic analysis (Koshkarova and Koshkarov, 2004) in north-central Siberia, the HCO warm event consisted of a winter warming of 3–9 C and a summer warming of 2–6 C compared with the modern period
Please don't post falsehoods based in what you want the paper to say, and not what it says. It doesn't help the discussion.
This is how that paper was cited by Aizen et. al (2016):
According to geomorphologic analysis (Koshkarova and Koshkarov, 2004) in north-central Siberia, the HCO warm event consisted of a winter warming of 3–9 C and a summer warming of 2–6 C compared with the modern period
Have you read the paper - or what do you base your claim about what it says upon? You know, regarding "derailing".
No, see my other post in this thread referencing proper science on that the decaying biomass is from before the glacial stage.
So, instead of helping you posted your own theory with no basis in facts ;)
Please cite the research behind that claim. Without knowing compared to when that temperature range means nothing.
You can have a feedback that does not lead to a runaway effect. This happens when the gain is less than 1
I know. That's the point my original post makes.
"keep rising sharply"
Are you suggestion we're soon going to be overrun by cows? Of course the only claimed worry is that the tundra is suddenly going to create a runaway warming scenario where additional warming will release more methane.
I suggest debating the actual points made instead. Apparently no sharply rising releases of methane happened during the Holocene Climatic Optimum - because it's still there.
I have no idea what you were just trying to write. I don't think it's related to any of my posts, though.
"expect keep rising sharply" is the runaway effect speculated from runaway methane emissions. I assure you my logic is perfectly fine.
I'm sorry, are you claiming that methane emissions (while cold) caused the transition from glacial to interglacial stage?
Also, I have not provided evidence for something I haven't claimed. Please follow the logic: If methane emissions from a warming arctic cause runaway warming, why did it not happen when the arctic was warmer than now 8000 years ago?