The reference point in a graph of temperature anomalies is arbitrary. It doesn't matter where zero is because they all show about the same amount of change when you subtract the low from the high.
Solar energy is the most significant driver of Earthly temperatures. It is the source of essentially all of the energy that makes Earth's temperature what it is. But it hasn't changed enough to account for all of the temperature changes that have occurred. So changes in solar activity are not the primary driver of current temperature changes.
Talking about the number of hurricanes hitting the US is silly. Whether they hit the us hard or not is a matter of chance. You need to look at hurricanes over the whole area they occur in. For instance 2010 and 2011 are tied for the third most active Atlantic hurricane season ever recorded and 2012 has been the most active before July ever recorded. (See the notes column in this list.)
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The next part of the argument is where things get more specious: The claim that this will be a bad thing for humanity as a whole. That's not a scientific theory, that's an over-arching claim, a judgement call. It is based on a number of theories and hypothesis out there. However to be accurate it needs to be backed up by theories with evidence that indicate that things will change in negative ways. Also you have to weigh just how positive and negative all the predicted changes will be.
The Earth's axis of rotation has not shifted significantly. As tmosely noted magnetic fields don't affect photons which are 99.999% of the energy we receive from the Sun. The magnetic pole's position does not affect the amount of sunlight that shines on any place on the Earth.
China may be the biggest absolute contributor of CO2 but on a per capita basis they don't come close to the US. How much of China's CO2 emissions are due to producing cheap goods for the US and other western nations?
I think the fact that Richard Muller was a known skeptic of global warming led them to believe he (and his team) would do an honest study of global temperatures as opposed to all of the other "politically motivated" studies they didn't like. And BEST did do an honest study. Richard Muller turned out to be a skeptic in the true sense of the word. Once he personally vetted the data he was willing to change his mind about it. The Koch's may not like the results but they're hard to argue with.
Actually if you look at this graph you find that there was a 700 year gap between the 1889 melt event and the previous one during the MWP. The 150 year average is skewed by high frequency of the events during the earlier Holocene 4,000-8,000 years ago. Admittedly this data is from only one ice core but it is from the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
You can't talk about natural sources without talking about natural sinks as well. Until humans started adding CO2 to the atmosphere the natural sources and natural sinks combined kept the level around 280 ppmv for over 8,000 years. It's called the Carbon Cycle for a reason.
Man made CO2 emissions can be calculated. For instance burning a ton of coal that is about 70% carbon produces about 2.5 tons of CO2. You can do similar calculations for other fossil fuels. We have pretty good numbers on how much fossil fuels are being used.
I challenge you to find any peer reviewed published paper that says Florida would be under water now. They don't exist. For the most part predictions of sea level rise from scientists has been on the conservative side. Occasionally they do speculate about the possibility of non-linear events such as the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet but we have little scientific evidence to point to such a possibility.
What's going to get Florida is not the straight sea level rise but the storm surge that comes on top of a slight sea level rise. That will chase the people from most of the state before it actually goes under water.
That assumes that the infrastructure still exists to supply the goods you need to build that home and that locations exist to move farming to. That's not a given.
And I was questioning the use of the word "toner". Toner is what is used in Laser printers and is a plastic powder that gets melted on to the paper. What they use in inkjets is properly termed "ink". Of course you are right that inkjet ink is one of the more costly fluids in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The reference point in a graph of temperature anomalies is arbitrary. It doesn't matter where zero is because they all show about the same amount of change when you subtract the low from the high.
Solar energy is the most significant driver of Earthly temperatures. It is the source of essentially all of the energy that makes Earth's temperature what it is. But it hasn't changed enough to account for all of the temperature changes that have occurred. So changes in solar activity are not the primary driver of current temperature changes.
Talking about the number of hurricanes hitting the US is silly. Whether they hit the us hard or not is a matter of chance. You need to look at hurricanes over the whole area they occur in. For instance 2010 and 2011 are tied for the third most active Atlantic hurricane season ever recorded and 2012 has been the most active before July ever recorded. (See the notes column in this list.)
Interesting hypothesis (not!). Now find the causal link between weather and the magnetic pole (as opposed to the rotational pole) moving.
Scientists knew that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affected temperature long before they matched the curve of CO2 levels and temperatures. Arrhenius was the first to explicitly state that in 1896.
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Do you care about the kind of lives your children and grandchildren will have? Oh, right, this is /.
The next part of the argument is where things get more specious: The claim that this will be a bad thing for humanity as a whole. That's not a scientific theory, that's an over-arching claim, a judgement call. It is based on a number of theories and hypothesis out there. However to be accurate it needs to be backed up by theories with evidence that indicate that things will change in negative ways. Also you have to weigh just how positive and negative all the predicted changes will be.
You need to read the IPCC AR4 Working Group II report. That's exactly what it's about.
LOL. That was good. A perfect example of Poe's Law.
Man, what have you been smoking?
The Earth's axis of rotation has not shifted significantly. As tmosely noted magnetic fields don't affect photons which are 99.999% of the energy we receive from the Sun. The magnetic pole's position does not affect the amount of sunlight that shines on any place on the Earth.
Station wagons have been replaced by minivans.
China may be the biggest absolute contributor of CO2 but on a per capita basis they don't come close to the US. How much of China's CO2 emissions are due to producing cheap goods for the US and other western nations?
I think the fact that Richard Muller was a known skeptic of global warming led them to believe he (and his team) would do an honest study of global temperatures as opposed to all of the other "politically motivated" studies they didn't like. And BEST did do an honest study. Richard Muller turned out to be a skeptic in the true sense of the word. Once he personally vetted the data he was willing to change his mind about it. The Koch's may not like the results but they're hard to argue with.
Actually if you look at this graph you find that there was a 700 year gap between the 1889 melt event and the previous one during the MWP. The 150 year average is skewed by high frequency of the events during the earlier Holocene 4,000-8,000 years ago. Admittedly this data is from only one ice core but it is from the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
You can't talk about natural sources without talking about natural sinks as well. Until humans started adding CO2 to the atmosphere the natural sources and natural sinks combined kept the level around 280 ppmv for over 8,000 years. It's called the Carbon Cycle for a reason.
Man made CO2 emissions can be calculated. For instance burning a ton of coal that is about 70% carbon produces about 2.5 tons of CO2. You can do similar calculations for other fossil fuels. We have pretty good numbers on how much fossil fuels are being used.
Manatees, being mammals must regularly rise to the surface to breathe.
I challenge you to find any peer reviewed published paper that says Florida would be under water now. They don't exist. For the most part predictions of sea level rise from scientists has been on the conservative side. Occasionally they do speculate about the possibility of non-linear events such as the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet but we have little scientific evidence to point to such a possibility.
What's going to get Florida is not the straight sea level rise but the storm surge that comes on top of a slight sea level rise. That will chase the people from most of the state before it actually goes under water.
That assumes that the infrastructure still exists to supply the goods you need to build that home and that locations exist to move farming to. That's not a given.
Maybe mentions of Stalin should be added to the Godwin meme. That way both sides of the political spectrum are represented.
That would be why it's called the Vehicle Assembly Building.
Maybe not long enough to learn that the correct usage is "breathe".
I guess I deserved that. I'm a little pedantic myself sometimes.
And how long would it survive trying to breath air?
And I was questioning the use of the word "toner". Toner is what is used in Laser printers and is a plastic powder that gets melted on to the paper. What they use in inkjets is properly termed "ink". Of course you are right that inkjet ink is one of the more costly fluids in the world.
Inkjet toner?