By that logic even a heterosexual marriage that hasn't produced children after a suitable period of time should be dissolved and people who are incapable of having children because they are sterile for one reason or another should not be allowed to marry.
In climatological terms 10 or even 15 years is pretty meaningless. Natural variation is enough to override a global warming signal in such a short time period. Get back with me in 2025 and we'll talk.
All you have to do is look at how CO2 levels in the atmosphere has changed over those millions of years to see that the level has been slowly dropping over that time period. It's in the data.
Without that "trace" gas the planet would be a frozen ball of ice. The main thing that supports the high levels of water vapor responsible for most of the greenhouse effect is the 15-20% of warming that is caused by CO2. Without it the atmosphere would get so cold most of the water vapor would precipitate out.
I don't know who modded your post +1 Informative, it should be modded -1 Ignorant.
Well, if you want to ask some current people who are experiencing the same thing you could travel to Beijing. I read an article recently that said over 1 million people in China have suffered premature deaths due to fine particle pollution, primarily soot from coal burning.
Sorry but when Hurricane Sandy combined with the other storm by definition it was no longer considered a hurricane or tropical storm. Nevertheless there were hurricane force winds spread out over a nearly 1000 mile diameter as it neared the coast and it was the largest storm of the type ever seen in the Atlantic Ocean. So whether you call it a hurricane or not is just a matter of semantics. It still had hurricane force winds as it hit the coast.
It's not really clear at this point whether climate is truly chaotic or not on the large scale. I found this post on the subject that is quite interesting. As well as the post some of the comments are quite pertinent.
The issue of Arctic sea ice melting is not one of sea level rise. SLR happens as the oceans warm up and as the glacial ice, particularly on Greenland and Antarctica melts which is all ongoing. The difference that sea ice melting makes is that the interaction between the atmosphere and open water is much different than between the atmosphere and an ice surface. Heat transfer and evaporation are much greater with open water and that's bound to change weather and climate with effects as far south as the subtropics.
A modern society would have plenty of warning if a supereruption were to happen again on that scale...
I'm not so sure about that. It's easy to imagine that it would be less than a year between the first indications that something's happening and the actual eruption and that scientists would not be able to tell if it was just going to be a more normal scale eruption or a supereruption before it happened. An eruption on that scale probably doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race but it certainly could cause millions or perhaps even billions of deaths especially if it's in the northern hemisphere.
The Arctic sea ice extent during this time of year doesn't really tell you much. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land and every year it pretty much freezes right up to the edge of that land with only a few spots like the Fram Strait where it can expand to the extent that conditions warrant. It's the minimum extent in September that tells you most about the health of Arctic sea ice. Chances are the minimum extent in September this year won't be quite as low as 2012 but in a few years another new record will be set. That's what happened after the previous record low in 2007.
When you talk about the rate of warming you need to consider not only atmospheric temperatures but ocean temperatures as well. The warming continues apace if you look at both.
I think if you analyze the amount of heat energy volcanoes emit compared to the amount of heat energy required to effect the changes we've observed you would find volcanic heat is totally inadequate to explain the melting.
Not really unless you're talking about large icebreakers or voyages that took more than one season to accomplish. It's only been the last 10 years or so that vessels not hardened for ice have been able to make the journey in the late summer.
Very few of the scientists who are actively studying climate disagree with AGW. Those who disagree should delve into the subject and try to provide an explanation that does a better job than the current paradigm to explain the observations than the current one. Then I'll start listening to them.
It's a beautiful example of the use of statistics. They statistically analyze the chance of any particular roll coming up and set the odds on the bets in their favor.
When it comes to climate what you're fundamentally talking about is an energy balance problem. It's not at chaotic as you think. There is energy coming into the system and energy going out and the difference is how much energy is retained. A change in energy retained causes all sorts of secondary effects like a change in temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans, a change in the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, and tertiary effects like changes in glaciers and weather. Both incoming and outgoing energy can and have been measured and there is a difference.
Did you miss the part where he said "until you reach a near-unity proportion"? Unity is what your 162/162 example is. Seems like you need to take some statistics courses.
Being President is of course a 24/7 job. I have a hard time begrudging any President from taking what relaxation they can get. I believe the President and his family pays the costs for these vacations they would incur anyway as a normal citizen and the government picks up the extra costs imposed by necessary security. I'm sure Air Force 1 has all the telecommunications equipment the President needs.
You know, I keep hearing these complaints about Obama's vacations but I'd like to see a comparison between the time he has spent on "vacation" vs. how much time GWB did. As far as I can tell it's less.
I think the GP misstated that. What is real that 40% of the $85.4 billion in cuts from sequestration are in military spending and the other 60% are spread around the rest of the government.
One distinction to be made is that this constellation of 12 satellites will be in low Earth orbit (LEO) at about ~1,200 miles. The main NOAA weather satellites are in either geosynchronous orbits or in polar Sun-synchronous orbits. Because they are synchronous almost by definition require more stationkeeping to maintain their orbits than the Planet IQ satellites. The concept is interesting measuring the density of the atmosphere by calculating how much it bends the signal from a GPS satellite. Apparently they can calculate the temperature, pressure, humidity and electron density from that information. The proof of concept was done by a joint US/Taiwan program called COSMIC launched in 2006 that is now mostly defunct.
While I agree that I still want my weather forecasting coming from the government at no cost (other than the taxes I pay to support it) I'm not sure I'm against doing it this way if they can provide quality information at a reasonable cost.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the compromise was that appropriations for armies couldn't be for longer than 2 years. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.
By that logic even a heterosexual marriage that hasn't produced children after a suitable period of time should be dissolved and people who are incapable of having children because they are sterile for one reason or another should not be allowed to marry.
In climatological terms 10 or even 15 years is pretty meaningless. Natural variation is enough to override a global warming signal in such a short time period. Get back with me in 2025 and we'll talk.
All you have to do is look at how CO2 levels in the atmosphere has changed over those millions of years to see that the level has been slowly dropping over that time period. It's in the data.
Without that "trace" gas the planet would be a frozen ball of ice. The main thing that supports the high levels of water vapor responsible for most of the greenhouse effect is the 15-20% of warming that is caused by CO2. Without it the atmosphere would get so cold most of the water vapor would precipitate out.
I don't know who modded your post +1 Informative, it should be modded -1 Ignorant.
Well, if you want to ask some current people who are experiencing the same thing you could travel to Beijing. I read an article recently that said over 1 million people in China have suffered premature deaths due to fine particle pollution, primarily soot from coal burning.
Sorry but when Hurricane Sandy combined with the other storm by definition it was no longer considered a hurricane or tropical storm. Nevertheless there were hurricane force winds spread out over a nearly 1000 mile diameter as it neared the coast and it was the largest storm of the type ever seen in the Atlantic Ocean. So whether you call it a hurricane or not is just a matter of semantics. It still had hurricane force winds as it hit the coast.
It's not really clear at this point whether climate is truly chaotic or not on the large scale. I found this post on the subject that is quite interesting. As well as the post some of the comments are quite pertinent.
Are you old enough to remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy? I am. I'm not going to complain about the cost of necessary security.
The issue of Arctic sea ice melting is not one of sea level rise. SLR happens as the oceans warm up and as the glacial ice, particularly on Greenland and Antarctica melts which is all ongoing. The difference that sea ice melting makes is that the interaction between the atmosphere and open water is much different than between the atmosphere and an ice surface. Heat transfer and evaporation are much greater with open water and that's bound to change weather and climate with effects as far south as the subtropics.
A modern society would have plenty of warning if a supereruption were to happen again on that scale ...
I'm not so sure about that. It's easy to imagine that it would be less than a year between the first indications that something's happening and the actual eruption and that scientists would not be able to tell if it was just going to be a more normal scale eruption or a supereruption before it happened. An eruption on that scale probably doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race but it certainly could cause millions or perhaps even billions of deaths especially if it's in the northern hemisphere.
The Arctic sea ice extent during this time of year doesn't really tell you much. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land and every year it pretty much freezes right up to the edge of that land with only a few spots like the Fram Strait where it can expand to the extent that conditions warrant. It's the minimum extent in September that tells you most about the health of Arctic sea ice. Chances are the minimum extent in September this year won't be quite as low as 2012 but in a few years another new record will be set. That's what happened after the previous record low in 2007.
When you talk about the rate of warming you need to consider not only atmospheric temperatures but ocean temperatures as well. The warming continues apace if you look at both.
I think if you analyze the amount of heat energy volcanoes emit compared to the amount of heat energy required to effect the changes we've observed you would find volcanic heat is totally inadequate to explain the melting.
Not really unless you're talking about large icebreakers or voyages that took more than one season to accomplish. It's only been the last 10 years or so that vessels not hardened for ice have been able to make the journey in the late summer.
Very few of the scientists who are actively studying climate disagree with AGW. Those who disagree should delve into the subject and try to provide an explanation that does a better job than the current paradigm to explain the observations than the current one. Then I'll start listening to them.
It's a beautiful example of the use of statistics. They statistically analyze the chance of any particular roll coming up and set the odds on the bets in their favor.
When it comes to climate what you're fundamentally talking about is an energy balance problem. It's not at chaotic as you think. There is energy coming into the system and energy going out and the difference is how much energy is retained. A change in energy retained causes all sorts of secondary effects like a change in temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans, a change in the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, and tertiary effects like changes in glaciers and weather. Both incoming and outgoing energy can and have been measured and there is a difference.
I think the state should not get involved with it, period.
If the state is going to grant legal rights such as inheritance and over 1000 others it has to be involved.
I'd bet that if you conducted the experiment in the USA the results wouldn't be much different. People are people.
Did you miss the part where he said "until you reach a near-unity proportion"? Unity is what your 162/162 example is. Seems like you need to take some statistics courses.
Being President is of course a 24/7 job. I have a hard time begrudging any President from taking what relaxation they can get. I believe the President and his family pays the costs for these vacations they would incur anyway as a normal citizen and the government picks up the extra costs imposed by necessary security. I'm sure Air Force 1 has all the telecommunications equipment the President needs.
Like the Mars probe that crashed? No wonder it's having so many problems. :)
You know, I keep hearing these complaints about Obama's vacations but I'd like to see a comparison between the time he has spent on "vacation" vs. how much time GWB did. As far as I can tell it's less.
Methinks you need to go back to school and learn the definitions of socialism and capitalism instead of just making up your own.
I think the GP misstated that. What is real that 40% of the $85.4 billion in cuts from sequestration are in military spending and the other 60% are spread around the rest of the government.
Are they sure it's not green cheese from the Moon?
One distinction to be made is that this constellation of 12 satellites will be in low Earth orbit (LEO) at about ~1,200 miles. The main NOAA weather satellites are in either geosynchronous orbits or in polar Sun-synchronous orbits. Because they are synchronous almost by definition require more stationkeeping to maintain their orbits than the Planet IQ satellites. The concept is interesting measuring the density of the atmosphere by calculating how much it bends the signal from a GPS satellite. Apparently they can calculate the temperature, pressure, humidity and electron density from that information. The proof of concept was done by a joint US/Taiwan program called COSMIC launched in 2006 that is now mostly defunct.
While I agree that I still want my weather forecasting coming from the government at no cost (other than the taxes I pay to support it) I'm not sure I'm against doing it this way if they can provide quality information at a reasonable cost.