And frankly, the hysteria mongers need to quit using "climate change deniers" as this is a misnomer, purposefully omitting that it's AGW that being challenged.
The more accurate term would be "climate science deniers".
The RSS record shows some cooling in the past 18 years but they're using an old satellite whose orbit is decaying and there are questions about how accurate that record is. The MSU satellite record and all of the surface temperature records still show warming.
Regarding the surface temperature records even if you use the raw data without any adjustments they still show warming.
Finally the US surface temperature record only covers ~3% of the globe. A minor factor in the whole picture.
"You really should take another look at the situation. The AGW Priesthood actually behave very similarly to the Creationists, and nothing whatsoever like the Evolutionary Science. The only difference is that the AGW people are adherents to a more fashionable religion.
Oh please. The weight of scientific evidence is far greater on the AGW side. People who think the scientific predictions of climate theory have been inaccurate generally don't understand how accurate scientists expect them to be in the first place.
What about if we fail to take on global warming and the effects cause millions or billions of people to starve to death because of reduced agricultural production? To just simply assume we can keep doing what we've been doing without consequences is just as absurd.
There's been some analysis of when the next ice age would occur. Based on Milankovitch Cycles and natural conditions you are correct. But there's been some work that shows CO2 levels have to be below 250 ppm for the Earth to drop into the next glaciation. As long as levels are above that the next glaciation will be indefinitely postponed.
So where's the warming? Both poles have more ice than usual.
Sea ice at both poles is up a bit compared to previous years but the land based ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continues to melt. The question is is this just a short term blip or a long term trend. It'll take at least another 5 or 10 years to determine that.
Climate is not weather but the statistical analysis of weather. There is a difference. The analysis shows the boundaries and variability of weather. It's possible to do climate analysis on just about any time scale but the standard used in climatology is 30 years.
I've always thought this whole situation to be rather ignorant of humans to think that we can single-handedly destroy a planet that has been here billions of years in our relatively minor existence.
Of course we are not going to destroy the planet. The Earth will go on with or without us. What we may be destroying or at least altering drastically are the geophysical systems that we have built our complex technological civilization on and that allow us to support 7+ billion humans. We may not be able to adapt fast enough to the changes that are occurring to maintain it all.
The reality is that immigrants, particularly illegals, are the ones performing jobs that others don't want. Hard to believe that not everyone grows up hoping to become the guy that scrubs the toilets and changes the paper towels at an office complex, or installing a new roof in 98 degree heat, but apparently these jobs are always looking for more people even in poor economic times.
I've done all of those things when I was younger (although roofing was the only one I did a lot of). But I grew up in the 1960's as a farm boy and knew what it meant to work hard for a $1.25 an hour.
As far as H1B, I think that any American citizen should be allowed to challenge an H1B worker to see who is more talented. If the citizen is equal or better than the H1B they get the job and the H1B gets sent home.
Notice I said Hispanic citizens. No matter what you think illegal immigrants do not vote. Why would they want to draw attention to themselves like that? No one has ever shown any hard numbers that they do and it shouldn't be that hard to prove if they were.
Did I say anything about sending the border agents home? I think the way to stem the tide of illegal immigration is to come down hard on the businesses that are employing them. No jobs will mean fewer illegal immigrants.
What you say is largely true. If somehow you could deport all of the people in the country illegally tomorrow it would plunge us into a massive depression from the drop in economic activity.
I'm not exactly a Democrat but I end up voting that way most of the time. I'm happy to differentiate between the two. At they same time the illegal immigrants and their families are still human beings and most of them want nothing more than a better life for themselves. The ones that need to be come down on hard are the businesses that continue to hire the illegals. If there was no work for them there would be fewer coming.
The one thing that would make the biggest difference in illegal immigration is to come down hard on businesses that hire them. If you make that hurt enough they'll have to reform their practices rather than going for the cheapest labor they can get. If it's obvious the illegals can't get jobs they'll quit coming (for the most part).
You know I think the Republicans are really shooting themselves in the foot with Hispanic citizens (not that I mind). I think a lot of Hispanic's are really quite conservative in their outlook but they've been driven away from the R's by all the anti-illegal immigrant/anti-Hispanic rhetoric.
The scientists are aware of all of those problems and have taken steps to mitigate the problems and have explained it all in the scientific literature. If you think it's all rubbish you need to publish some scientific evidence to show that. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
What they should do is the same thing they alread do on tobacco packages. A message warning it is hazardous to your health over a picture of Jabba the Hut.
I think the utility of this idea lies in the cost and method of production of the ammonia. How much energy does it take to make it and what are the byproducts of production.
Of course essentially all Iceland's electric power is produced by hydroelectric and geothermal power stations. They've got more of that than they know what to do with. Fossil fuel use is limited to imported oil for transportation and the fishing fleet.
As itzly said the information you seek is in the published scientific papers. Why should we listen to someone like you unless you can demonstrate that you're familiar enough with the literature that we're not rehashing old news?
Slashdot Mirror
And frankly, the hysteria mongers need to quit using "climate change deniers" as this is a misnomer, purposefully omitting that it's AGW that being challenged.
The more accurate term would be "climate science deniers".
Yeah, because they're looking at the whole planet instead of just their little piece of it. Right.
If you're more worried about money than the scientific evidence you're doing it wrong.
The RSS record shows some cooling in the past 18 years but they're using an old satellite whose orbit is decaying and there are questions about how accurate that record is. The MSU satellite record and all of the surface temperature records still show warming.
Regarding the surface temperature records even if you use the raw data without any adjustments they still show warming.
Finally the US surface temperature record only covers ~3% of the globe. A minor factor in the whole picture.
Regular satellite measurements of the Earth's temperature didn't start until November of 1979.
"You really should take another look at the situation. The AGW Priesthood actually behave very similarly to the Creationists, and nothing whatsoever like the Evolutionary Science. The only difference is that the AGW people are adherents to a more fashionable religion.
Oh please. The weight of scientific evidence is far greater on the AGW side. People who think the scientific predictions of climate theory have been inaccurate generally don't understand how accurate scientists expect them to be in the first place.
What about if we fail to take on global warming and the effects cause millions or billions of people to starve to death because of reduced agricultural production? To just simply assume we can keep doing what we've been doing without consequences is just as absurd.
True but the barycenter between the Earth and the Sun is pretty damn close to the center of the Sun.
There's been some analysis of when the next ice age would occur. Based on Milankovitch Cycles and natural conditions you are correct. But there's been some work that shows CO2 levels have to be below 250 ppm for the Earth to drop into the next glaciation. As long as levels are above that the next glaciation will be indefinitely postponed.
So where's the warming? Both poles have more ice than usual.
Sea ice at both poles is up a bit compared to previous years but the land based ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continues to melt. The question is is this just a short term blip or a long term trend. It'll take at least another 5 or 10 years to determine that.
Climate is not weather but the statistical analysis of weather. There is a difference. The analysis shows the boundaries and variability of weather. It's possible to do climate analysis on just about any time scale but the standard used in climatology is 30 years.
I've always thought this whole situation to be rather ignorant of humans to think that we can single-handedly destroy a planet that has been here billions of years in our relatively minor existence.
Of course we are not going to destroy the planet. The Earth will go on with or without us. What we may be destroying or at least altering drastically are the geophysical systems that we have built our complex technological civilization on and that allow us to support 7+ billion humans. We may not be able to adapt fast enough to the changes that are occurring to maintain it all.
The reality is that immigrants, particularly illegals, are the ones performing jobs that others don't want. Hard to believe that not everyone grows up hoping to become the guy that scrubs the toilets and changes the paper towels at an office complex, or installing a new roof in 98 degree heat, but apparently these jobs are always looking for more people even in poor economic times.
I've done all of those things when I was younger (although roofing was the only one I did a lot of). But I grew up in the 1960's as a farm boy and knew what it meant to work hard for a $1.25 an hour.
As far as H1B, I think that any American citizen should be allowed to challenge an H1B worker to see who is more talented. If the citizen is equal or better than the H1B they get the job and the H1B gets sent home.
Notice I said Hispanic citizens. No matter what you think illegal immigrants do not vote. Why would they want to draw attention to themselves like that? No one has ever shown any hard numbers that they do and it shouldn't be that hard to prove if they were.
Did I say anything about sending the border agents home? I think the way to stem the tide of illegal immigration is to come down hard on the businesses that are employing them. No jobs will mean fewer illegal immigrants.
What you say is largely true. If somehow you could deport all of the people in the country illegally tomorrow it would plunge us into a massive depression from the drop in economic activity.
I'm not exactly a Democrat but I end up voting that way most of the time. I'm happy to differentiate between the two. At they same time the illegal immigrants and their families are still human beings and most of them want nothing more than a better life for themselves. The ones that need to be come down on hard are the businesses that continue to hire the illegals. If there was no work for them there would be fewer coming.
The one thing that would make the biggest difference in illegal immigration is to come down hard on businesses that hire them. If you make that hurt enough they'll have to reform their practices rather than going for the cheapest labor they can get. If it's obvious the illegals can't get jobs they'll quit coming (for the most part).
You know I think the Republicans are really shooting themselves in the foot with Hispanic citizens (not that I mind). I think a lot of Hispanic's are really quite conservative in their outlook but they've been driven away from the R's by all the anti-illegal immigrant/anti-Hispanic rhetoric.
The scientists are aware of all of those problems and have taken steps to mitigate the problems and have explained it all in the scientific literature. If you think it's all rubbish you need to publish some scientific evidence to show that. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
What they should do is the same thing they alread do on tobacco packages. A message warning it is hazardous to your health over a picture of Jabba the Hut.
I think the utility of this idea lies in the cost and method of production of the ammonia. How much energy does it take to make it and what are the byproducts of production.
If you're going to build something that large you might as well make it dual use. How about an archology?
Of course essentially all Iceland's electric power is produced by hydroelectric and geothermal power stations. They've got more of that than they know what to do with. Fossil fuel use is limited to imported oil for transportation and the fishing fleet.
There really aren't any research stations very close to this section of Antarctica near the Amundsen Sea. Map
As itzly said the information you seek is in the published scientific papers. Why should we listen to someone like you unless you can demonstrate that you're familiar enough with the literature that we're not rehashing old news?