If the climate science deniers are right they're in the wrong field. If they'd just sell their souls to toe the warmista line they'd be rolling in grant money./sarcasm
At some point you won't have any choice about changing the way you live (if you're young enough to be still alive in another 20 or 30 years). The changes that will occur from global warming will necessitate that you change whether you want to or not.
The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane season has been mild but the Eastern Pacific season is on the verge of record setting and the Western Pacific typhoon season is going strong.
The accuracy of models is not a binary condition. They were accurate in the past given the state of our knowledge. They are more accurate now because the state of our knowledge has improved. They will be more accurate in the future as we learn even more.
So it wasnt [sic] going into the oceans before and all of a sudden started going into the oceans all at once? Thus creating a "pause"? Why wasnt [sic] the heat going into the oceans before the "pause"?
Considering that over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans in the first place and that the top 10 feet of ocean contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere it doesn't take much of a shift in heat absorption by the oceans to have a profound effect on atmospheric temperatures. Heat has always been going into the oceans, the distribution has just shifted a little lately.
Is this The Pause Explanation #51 or #52? Can't keep track anymore.
Why would you think that there can be only a single explanation of "The Pause" (really just a slowdown in atmospheric warming) rather than multiple things coming together to cause the effect?
I don't totally disagree with you on the airbag thing but you're making that choice for your passengers too. Laws requiring seat belts to be worn make sense because they keep you and your passengers in their seats giving you a better chance of maintaining control in an accident situation which may save others not in your vehicle as well.
Yes, monopolies is the problem but I don't want to see 10 different cables running across the poles from my house and the road being dug up every 6 months to install a new cable. Instead what should happen is the monopoly should be shrunk down to only be the cables that deliver the information and it should be run as a public utility. Then any ISP/content provider has equal access to the line to your house and there will be competition for that.
The article barks at the wrong tree. The cryosphere page at University of Illinois-Champagne shows that we are currently seeing 1.3 million sq. kmmore sea ice than the average, and the levels have been sharply rising the last few years.
There is a fine balance between trying to increase awareness and being a downright propagandist. Unfortunately, this article doesn't help the cause. This is exactly the kind of thing that make people believe environmentalists are exaggerating and grasping at straws.
Wired: Stop. You are not helping.
Before you go on you really should learn the difference between ice sheets,ice shelves and sea ice. They are not the same thing. Talking about sea ice in response to this article about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a non-sequitur.
The weaker gravity is the reason space missions are launched from places that are close to the equator, Florida in the US and French Guiana for the ESA.
You'll notice that most space missions are launched toward the east as well. This is mainly because the rotational velocity of the Earth is greatest at the Equator (~1,040 mph or 1,674 km/h) which means less fuel is needed to reach orbital velocity. I doubt gravity has a lot to do with it but it probably helps a bit as well.
The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
Yes but before the ESA satellite there were the GRACE satellites launched in 2002 that also showed West Antarctica losing ice and Antarctica overall is losing ice at a rate of almost 69 GT/year (graph). So it's more like 12 years of data. Even that is a rather short time period compared to the standard climatological period of 30 years. But the standard climatological variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind are very noisy compared the rate of ice loss so it takes longer to discern a significant trend with them than with ice. So 12 years may be long enough for significance. I'm not sure.
According to the NPR report I just heard it was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they fell ill so they probably weren't contagious on the plane ride over.
Listening to NPR they just reported that the person had traveled from Liberia to visit family. It was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they started feeling sick so it's not likely the folks on the airplane are at risk.
I thought about that but if the regulators actions are subject to review by their supervisors and ultimately by the courts they're going to be careful to make sure their actions are justified. Perhaps you could build in a negative incentive like reduction in salary for failed actions.
One way to get the regulators to do their job better would be to give the bonuses of some percentage of the fines levied for breaking the regulations. That would reduce their incentive to keep their noses clean in expectation of a high paying job after their government career ends.
... If the system cannot handle the current load, then the system needs to be upgraded.
The system handles the current load just fine. They just haven't gone to the expense of making it doubly redundant so when a major facility goes down it causes problems. Once ADSB becomes mandatory in 2020 this will be less of an issue for a radar facility like this since each airplane will be broadcasting it's position and vector to every other ADSB equipped airplane and they won't need ground based radar to maintain separation.
You could change "Professional Left" to "Professional Right" and a few other words in your little pile of straw men and it would be just about as applicable.
If it's all global, why does ice melting in the arctic count as evidence of GW, but ice *expanding* in Antarctica not count as counter-evidence?
Because a simple analysis like that is seldom adequate. Scientists who have looked at the increase in Antarctic sea ice have found several reasons that combine to cause the increase. First the circumpolar winds have grown stronger apparently because of the ozone hole over Antarctica. That pushes the existing sea ice around more opening polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. Second global warming causes the ice sitting on the continent to melt and also increased precipitation which causes the water on the surface to freshen making it easier to freeze. Finally the fresher water is less dense than the warmer saltier water under it so the ocean stratifies and the the warmer saltier water is prevented from rising to the surface reducing ice melt from it.
That graph is most assuredly not the South Pole or anywhere near it. The caption says "Southern Polar 70.0S to 60.0S". Very little of Antarctica is north of 70S. It's about 1,380 miles from 70S to 90S.
As the others explained a larger wind turbine is more efficient, not just in harnessing the wind power but also in resources used to produce it. For example one big generator instead of 100 smaller ones. Another factor is that smaller wind turbines turn faster and so kill more birds.
So you don't think anything is worth trying unless you can tell ahead of time if it's going to work or not? There's a lot of energy to be extracted from waves if we can figure out how to harness them.
If your poorly constructed argument were correct, then the Earth's temperature would be increasing year upon year. However it is not, as the warmest year in recent records is 1998. We know from the fossil record that increased carbon dioxide levels are a response to global warming, not a driver
A more complete accounting of the energy balance of the Earth's geosystems includes not only the atmosphere but the oceans, land and biosphere. Natural variation will affect how energy is distributed between those areas. So even though surface atmospheric temperature may not be rising as steeply lately (and choosing 1998 is an extreme cherry pick) the oceans (where over 90% of the energy from global warming goes) have continued to warm up. Given the different heat capacity between air and water it doesn't take much of a change in ocean warming to have a major effect on atmospheric warming.
Slashdot Mirror
If the climate science deniers are right they're in the wrong field. If they'd just sell their souls to toe the warmista line they'd be rolling in grant money. /sarcasm
I did some research and calculations and it looks like the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
Mass of the World Ocean 1.37 x 10^21 kg or 1.37 x 10^24 grams
Specific heat of water 4.1813 J/g/K
Mass of the atmosphere 5.3 x 10^18 kg or 5.3 x 10^21 grams
Specific heat of air 1.012 J/g/K
1,370 * 4.1813 = 5728.4
5.3 * 1.012 = 5.3636
5728.4 / 5.3636 = 1068
I think I calculated that correctly but let me know if I got it wrong.
Wrong. I will never change the way I live.
At some point you won't have any choice about changing the way you live (if you're young enough to be still alive in another 20 or 30 years). The changes that will occur from global warming will necessitate that you change whether you want to or not.
The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane season has been mild but the Eastern Pacific season is on the verge of record setting and the Western Pacific typhoon season is going strong.
The accuracy of models is not a binary condition. They were accurate in the past given the state of our knowledge. They are more accurate now because the state of our knowledge has improved. They will be more accurate in the future as we learn even more.
So it wasnt [sic] going into the oceans before and all of a sudden started going into the oceans all at once? Thus creating a "pause"? Why wasnt [sic] the heat going into the oceans before the "pause"?
Considering that over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans in the first place and that the top 10 feet of ocean contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere it doesn't take much of a shift in heat absorption by the oceans to have a profound effect on atmospheric temperatures. Heat has always been going into the oceans, the distribution has just shifted a little lately.
Is this The Pause Explanation #51 or #52? Can't keep track anymore.
Why would you think that there can be only a single explanation of "The Pause" (really just a slowdown in atmospheric warming) rather than multiple things coming together to cause the effect?
I don't totally disagree with you on the airbag thing but you're making that choice for your passengers too. Laws requiring seat belts to be worn make sense because they keep you and your passengers in their seats giving you a better chance of maintaining control in an accident situation which may save others not in your vehicle as well.
Yes, monopolies is the problem but I don't want to see 10 different cables running across the poles from my house and the road being dug up every 6 months to install a new cable. Instead what should happen is the monopoly should be shrunk down to only be the cables that deliver the information and it should be run as a public utility. Then any ISP/content provider has equal access to the line to your house and there will be competition for that.
So, do China and India launch their rockets to the west toward Mecca?
The article barks at the wrong tree. The cryosphere page at University of Illinois-Champagne shows that we are currently seeing 1.3 million sq. km more sea ice than the average, and the levels have been sharply rising the last few years.
There is a fine balance between trying to increase awareness and being a downright propagandist. Unfortunately, this article doesn't help the cause. This is exactly the kind of thing that make people believe environmentalists are exaggerating and grasping at straws.
Wired: Stop. You are not helping.
Before you go on you really should learn the difference between ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice. They are not the same thing. Talking about sea ice in response to this article about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a non-sequitur.
The weaker gravity is the reason space missions are launched from places that are close to the equator, Florida in the US and French Guiana for the ESA.
You'll notice that most space missions are launched toward the east as well. This is mainly because the rotational velocity of the Earth is greatest at the Equator (~1,040 mph or 1,674 km/h) which means less fuel is needed to reach orbital velocity. I doubt gravity has a lot to do with it but it probably helps a bit as well.
The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
Yes but before the ESA satellite there were the GRACE satellites launched in 2002 that also showed West Antarctica losing ice and Antarctica overall is losing ice at a rate of almost 69 GT/year (graph). So it's more like 12 years of data. Even that is a rather short time period compared to the standard climatological period of 30 years. But the standard climatological variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind are very noisy compared the rate of ice loss so it takes longer to discern a significant trend with them than with ice. So 12 years may be long enough for significance. I'm not sure.
According to the NPR report I just heard it was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they fell ill so they probably weren't contagious on the plane ride over.
Listening to NPR they just reported that the person had traveled from Liberia to visit family. It was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they started feeling sick so it's not likely the folks on the airplane are at risk.
I thought about that but if the regulators actions are subject to review by their supervisors and ultimately by the courts they're going to be careful to make sure their actions are justified. Perhaps you could build in a negative incentive like reduction in salary for failed actions.
One way to get the regulators to do their job better would be to give the bonuses of some percentage of the fines levied for breaking the regulations. That would reduce their incentive to keep their noses clean in expectation of a high paying job after their government career ends.
The system handles the current load just fine. They just haven't gone to the expense of making it doubly redundant so when a major facility goes down it causes problems. Once ADSB becomes mandatory in 2020 this will be less of an issue for a radar facility like this since each airplane will be broadcasting it's position and vector to every other ADSB equipped airplane and they won't need ground based radar to maintain separation.
Except there is no "Professional Right".
LOL. It sounds to me like your ideology just makes you blind to them. BTW, ACORN went out of business 6 years ago so you can remove it from your list.
You could change "Professional Left" to "Professional Right" and a few other words in your little pile of straw men and it would be just about as applicable.
If it's all global, why does ice melting in the arctic count as evidence of GW, but ice *expanding* in Antarctica not count as counter-evidence?
Because a simple analysis like that is seldom adequate. Scientists who have looked at the increase in Antarctic sea ice have found several reasons that combine to cause the increase. First the circumpolar winds have grown stronger apparently because of the ozone hole over Antarctica. That pushes the existing sea ice around more opening polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. Second global warming causes the ice sitting on the continent to melt and also increased precipitation which causes the water on the surface to freshen making it easier to freeze. Finally the fresher water is less dense than the warmer saltier water under it so the ocean stratifies and the the warmer saltier water is prevented from rising to the surface reducing ice melt from it.
That graph is most assuredly not the South Pole or anywhere near it. The caption says "Southern Polar 70.0S to 60.0S". Very little of Antarctica is north of 70S. It's about 1,380 miles from 70S to 90S.
As the others explained a larger wind turbine is more efficient, not just in harnessing the wind power but also in resources used to produce it. For example one big generator instead of 100 smaller ones. Another factor is that smaller wind turbines turn faster and so kill more birds.
So you don't think anything is worth trying unless you can tell ahead of time if it's going to work or not? There's a lot of energy to be extracted from waves if we can figure out how to harness them.
If your poorly constructed argument were correct, then the Earth's temperature would be increasing year upon year. However it is not, as the warmest year in recent records is 1998. We know from the fossil record that increased carbon dioxide levels are a response to global warming, not a driver
A more complete accounting of the energy balance of the Earth's geosystems includes not only the atmosphere but the oceans, land and biosphere. Natural variation will affect how energy is distributed between those areas. So even though surface atmospheric temperature may not be rising as steeply lately (and choosing 1998 is an extreme cherry pick) the oceans (where over 90% of the energy from global warming goes) have continued to warm up. Given the different heat capacity between air and water it doesn't take much of a change in ocean warming to have a major effect on atmospheric warming.