It wasn't stating that AGW is real that generated the controversy but rather the proposed solutions to it.
When you get right down to it the only possible solution in the long run is to quit increasing the level of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere. Anything else is just a short term band-aid. I'm happy to listen to anyone's proposed solution to the problem but there's no getting around that basic fact.
Looking at it simply the cost of not keeping the biosphere in a livable condition is the death of all humans. More realistically the human species is very versatile and inventive so I don't expect it to die out completely but it wouldn't be shocking if the population was reduced by half or more 100 years from now if we don't address the anthropogenic causes of global warming.
Some parts of the Thwaites Glacier are melting because of geothermal heat, not all of it. In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat. Why should you be astonished when scientists report science?
This is exactly what I came here to say. Net neutrality doesn't mean giving every kind of packet equal priority but giving every source equal priority.
Nationalism or religious intolerance is the excuse you hear but more often that's a cover for resource competition. It's a lot easier for demagogues to whip up the population when resources are short.
Energy is a fungible resource. It's not necessary to produce it with fossil fuels or nuclear power (and I'm not anti-nuke but it is one of the more expensive ways to produce power). Getting off fossil fuels may necessitate some changes to our lifestyle but I don't believe it has to be any worse than we have now, just different.
Most economic analyses I've see show it will be much more expensive in the long run to not do something about global warming than it will be to do something about it.
I almost always use cash at the grocery store. I'm the one waiting in line for person running their card through the machine. Checks are for the big purchases.
If we want to continue to have an expanding economy sooner or later we're going to have to use the resources available off planet. The human race is built for expansion and until we get into space in a big way we will continue to be vulnerable to all sorts of things. If we don't expand into space we have no real future in the long run.
My add-ons are minimal and I've had the problem on both my home and work computers, both running on Windows 7. Add-ons here at work are Acrobat, Shockwave and Silverlight. At home I also have No-Script. Maybe Shockwave has something to do with it as I've had that crash on me several times too.
I hope they fixed the memory usage problem I've been having since the last update. Lately for me FF has been running up over 3GB of memory usage and then crashing after anywhere from 6 to 12 hours with only 7 or 8 tabs open. It's been driving me crazy.
Most wars are ultimately about resources. The changes caused by global warming are subtle enough that someone like you can easily argue they are natural occurrences in the short run but as time marches on they will become more and more obvious. Expansion of the Hadley Cells and more desertification in the descending legs (where Syria is located) is an expected result of global warming.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Schimdt is not doing responsible science, just that JQP's hope is a pipe dream. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Schmidt. He gave a TED talk recently on The emergent patters of climate change that covers the study of climate from the smallest scale up to the big picture.
You can't understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It's the whole, or it's nothing. In this illuminating talk, he explains how he studies the big picture of climate change with mesmerizing models that illustrate the endlessly complex interactions of small-scale environmental events.
Keep in mind the article is talking about Greenland only. The 20cm figure doesn't include expected melt from Antarctica and other glacial sources or the expected rise from thermal expansion.
And yet if we don't control our CO2 emissions the end result will be an increased strain on our civilization which is likely to cause more wars anyway. For instance one factor in the Syrian conflict is the drought that Syria has been going through for the last 3 years. The chances are good that global warming is part of the Syrian drought. The effects of global warming won't always be directly visible as a cause of things like this but it's likely to be a factor and it's likely to get worse as global warming marches on.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't stating that AGW is real that generated the controversy but rather the proposed solutions to it.
When you get right down to it the only possible solution in the long run is to quit increasing the level of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere. Anything else is just a short term band-aid. I'm happy to listen to anyone's proposed solution to the problem but there's no getting around that basic fact.
Looking at it simply the cost of not keeping the biosphere in a livable condition is the death of all humans. More realistically the human species is very versatile and inventive so I don't expect it to die out completely but it wouldn't be shocking if the population was reduced by half or more 100 years from now if we don't address the anthropogenic causes of global warming.
Some parts of the Thwaites Glacier are melting because of geothermal heat, not all of it. In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat. Why should you be astonished when scientists report science?
What is not curbing CO2 means 2 or 3 times the cost of curbing it? That's what a lot of economic analyses show.
This is exactly what I came here to say. Net neutrality doesn't mean giving every kind of packet equal priority but giving every source equal priority.
That's one way to look at it. You could also say the TED talk is outreach, bringing science to the public.
Nationalism or religious intolerance is the excuse you hear but more often that's a cover for resource competition. It's a lot easier for demagogues to whip up the population when resources are short.
Energy is a fungible resource. It's not necessary to produce it with fossil fuels or nuclear power (and I'm not anti-nuke but it is one of the more expensive ways to produce power). Getting off fossil fuels may necessitate some changes to our lifestyle but I don't believe it has to be any worse than we have now, just different.
Most economic analyses I've see show it will be much more expensive in the long run to not do something about global warming than it will be to do something about it.
I almost always use cash at the grocery store. I'm the one waiting in line for person running their card through the machine. Checks are for the big purchases.
I use cash or checks for 99% of my purchases. That way I avoid this issue. I'm also an old guy so "Get off my lawn!"
If we want to continue to have an expanding economy sooner or later we're going to have to use the resources available off planet. The human race is built for expansion and until we get into space in a big way we will continue to be vulnerable to all sorts of things. If we don't expand into space we have no real future in the long run.
If Comcast is setting up these wifi hotspots shouldn't they pay me rent for hosting it for them?
My add-ons are minimal and I've had the problem on both my home and work computers, both running on Windows 7. Add-ons here at work are Acrobat, Shockwave and Silverlight. At home I also have No-Script. Maybe Shockwave has something to do with it as I've had that crash on me several times too.
I hope they fixed the memory usage problem I've been having since the last update. Lately for me FF has been running up over 3GB of memory usage and then crashing after anywhere from 6 to 12 hours with only 7 or 8 tabs open. It's been driving me crazy.
Most wars are ultimately about resources. The changes caused by global warming are subtle enough that someone like you can easily argue they are natural occurrences in the short run but as time marches on they will become more and more obvious. Expansion of the Hadley Cells and more desertification in the descending legs (where Syria is located) is an expected result of global warming.
Yea, I knew that but I had to ask the question.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Schimdt is not doing responsible science, just that JQP's hope is a pipe dream. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Schmidt. He gave a TED talk recently on The emergent patters of climate change that covers the study of climate from the smallest scale up to the big picture.
You can't understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It's the whole, or it's nothing. In this illuminating talk, he explains how he studies the big picture of climate change with mesmerizing models that illustrate the endlessly complex interactions of small-scale environmental events.
Typo, I meant to write "electing" of course.
Keep in mind the article is talking about Greenland only. The 20cm figure doesn't include expected melt from Antarctica and other glacial sources or the expected rise from thermal expansion.
Where do you think the "pause" in global warming comes from? /sarc
And yet if we don't control our CO2 emissions the end result will be an increased strain on our civilization which is likely to cause more wars anyway. For instance one factor in the Syrian conflict is the drought that Syria has been going through for the last 3 years. The chances are good that global warming is part of the Syrian drought. The effects of global warming won't always be directly visible as a cause of things like this but it's likely to be a factor and it's likely to get worse as global warming marches on.
Good luck, Gavin Schmidt is one of the primary architects of the GISS Model-E, one of the preeminent climate models in the world.
Yep, election Obama to the Presidency was the best thing ever for the firearms industry.
Wildfires also are a factor in black carbon production and the number of wildfires in the far north has been increasing lately.
But less than 0.3m in the last 3K years.
Well, there's an opportunity for you to do the research and find out for yourself if you are right. Until you publish I'll take NOAA's word for it. Here is the main page for the Kwajalein gauge to get you started. If you dig enough the raw data is available.