I would say both Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Bernie Sanders are pretty honest about their politics. They probably hold their nose and vote for things at times but they'll tell you why they did it.
If you RTFA you see the color of the plumage was determined from microscopic structures in the fossilized feathers, the same structures that determine the color of modern birds feathers.
If you want to give it several million years to evolve the world you describe might be ok. If we force the change in less than 1000 years the main result is a mass extinction that takes a million or more years to recover from. That leave humans with much less diversity in the natural resources available. The modern equivalent of hadrosaurs would probably take at least 10,000 years or more to evolve.
Of course climate change is not the only reason species go extinct. Individual species go extinct for all sorts of reasons.
But there have been several mass extinction events in the past that global climate change played a role in. Even if it was an asteroid strike or a flood basalt volcanic eruption that was the specific cause the result was climate changes that species couldn't adapt to.
How about making the penalty amputation of your thumbs for killing or causing serious injury to someone because you were texting while driving. That would make any serious texter think twice.
(No, I'm not seriously proposing that but the punishment would fit the crime.)
I suspect Martian air loses methane quickly mostly because it is broken down by UV radiation from the Sun. Mars doesn't have a protective ozone layer like Earth.
You're complaining about how much is spent for each job but unless you separate out how much is spent on materials and overhead it's not an accurate number. And you have to consider that the money spent on materials and overhead actually end up paying other peoples wages as well it's an expenditure that has ripple effects into the broader economy. It's just not a simple as you'd like to make it.
However, when taxes were lower, government revenues were higher, meaning that we are on the right side of the peak. ("right" meaning direction, not "correct")
I laughed when I read that. Government revenues typically go up from one year to the next regardless of changes in tax rates simply because of growth in the GDP. The real comparison to make is government revenue as a percentage of GDP. I suspect it's more likely we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.
Oregon is known for the highest per capita numbers of microbreweries and strip clubs. In 2008 Portland had 30 microbreweries and the state as a whole nearly 90 of them for a population of just under 4 million.
Shooting at ceramic insulators is a time honored tradition here in Oregon. I even took some pot shots at them with a 22 when I was a teenager (1960's). But it's still a stupid thing to do.
Boulez is probably capable of reading a score in real time and hearing it fully or in each part in his mind. Besides, when he's conducting a piece he has the best spot in the house to listen from.
1. Since the launch of the Grace satellites in 2002 there has been a simpler way of measuring ice loss by measuring changes in gravity over those areas.
2. Since the launch of the TOPEX/Poseidon satellites in 1992 sea level has been measured very precisely. It's just a matter of attributing how much change each input is causing. (Among the inputs I count thermal expansion, glacial melt, and crustal topography changes.)
It is rather arbitrary. West Antarctica is considered to be the part of the continent that faces the Pacific Ocean including the Antarctic Peninsula. East Antarctica is the part that faces the Indian Ocean. They are divided by the Transantarctic Mountains.
Menne tried to get Watts involved but he didn't respond in a timely manner then Watts accused Menne of excluding him.
What is this false premise you speak of?
The vast majority of the data and methodology is available to the public. This page points to a bunch of them. But I guess maybe you're lazy and want it handed to you on a silver platter.
Why don't you take up a collection to pay professional statisticians? The grants climate scientists get don't include funds to pay for that. Most climate scientists are fair statisticians anyway since statistics underlies the majority of their work.
Two specific criticisms of the paper is that it conflated precipitation proxies with temperature proxies and that regional temperature changes were taken as global temperature changes. Those are the sorts of errors that peer review should catch and eliminate but an editor with an agenda got it through anyway.
The journal Climate Research printed a flawed paper that should have never passed peer review without major revisions. Then the publisher refused to retract the paper. If I were a scientist why would I want to associate myself in any way with a journal that would do such a thing?
The current North Atlantic hurricane season is only about half over. So far there have been 9 named tropical storms, 3 hurricanes and 2 major hurricanes. The 1950 to 2000 average was 9.6 named storms, 5.9 hurricanes and 2.3 major hurricanes. Based on that it's likely that this will be an above average year.
No, the ocean rises at the rate it rises. We have very accurate measurements of sea level rise from satellites. The two primary contributors to SLR are thermal expansion and glacial ice melt. This just changes the proportions between the two.
But the total volume of ice in the Arctic is lower than it was in 2007 & 2008. Volume is probably more important in the long run than extent since the thickness of the ice is an indicator of how long it's likely to last.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say both Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Bernie Sanders are pretty honest about their politics. They probably hold their nose and vote for things at times but they'll tell you why they did it.
If I had mod points you'd get an Insightful for that statement.
If you RTFA you see the color of the plumage was determined from microscopic structures in the fossilized feathers, the same structures that determine the color of modern birds feathers.
If you want to give it several million years to evolve the world you describe might be ok. If we force the change in less than 1000 years the main result is a mass extinction that takes a million or more years to recover from. That leave humans with much less diversity in the natural resources available. The modern equivalent of hadrosaurs would probably take at least 10,000 years or more to evolve.
Of course climate change is not the only reason species go extinct. Individual species go extinct for all sorts of reasons.
But there have been several mass extinction events in the past that global climate change played a role in. Even if it was an asteroid strike or a flood basalt volcanic eruption that was the specific cause the result was climate changes that species couldn't adapt to.
How about making the penalty amputation of your thumbs for killing or causing serious injury to someone because you were texting while driving. That would make any serious texter think twice.
(No, I'm not seriously proposing that but the punishment would fit the crime.)
I suspect Martian air loses methane quickly mostly because it is broken down by UV radiation from the Sun. Mars doesn't have a protective ozone layer like Earth.
You're complaining about how much is spent for each job but unless you separate out how much is spent on materials and overhead it's not an accurate number. And you have to consider that the money spent on materials and overhead actually end up paying other peoples wages as well it's an expenditure that has ripple effects into the broader economy. It's just not a simple as you'd like to make it.
However, when taxes were lower, government revenues were higher, meaning that we are on the right side of the peak. ("right" meaning direction, not "correct")
I laughed when I read that. Government revenues typically go up from one year to the next regardless of changes in tax rates simply because of growth in the GDP. The real comparison to make is government revenue as a percentage of GDP. I suspect it's more likely we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.
Come on, this is /.
Digging trenches around The Dalles in Oregon is not that easy. Much of the area is solid basalt rock that may require explosives to excavate.
Oregon is known for the highest per capita numbers of microbreweries and strip clubs. In 2008 Portland had 30 microbreweries and the state as a whole nearly 90 of them for a population of just under 4 million.
Shooting at ceramic insulators is a time honored tradition here in Oregon. I even took some pot shots at them with a 22 when I was a teenager (1960's). But it's still a stupid thing to do.
:)
Boulez is probably capable of reading a score in real time and hearing it fully or in each part in his mind. Besides, when he's conducting a piece he has the best spot in the house to listen from.
Replying to both petaflop & Yvanhoe.
1. Since the launch of the Grace satellites in 2002 there has been a simpler way of measuring ice loss by measuring changes in gravity over those areas.
2. Since the launch of the TOPEX/Poseidon satellites in 1992 sea level has been measured very precisely. It's just a matter of attributing how much change each input is causing. (Among the inputs I count thermal expansion, glacial melt, and crustal topography changes.)
It is rather arbitrary. West Antarctica is considered to be the part of the continent that faces the Pacific Ocean including the Antarctic Peninsula. East Antarctica is the part that faces the Indian Ocean. They are divided by the Transantarctic Mountains.
Menne tried to get Watts involved but he didn't respond in a timely manner then Watts accused Menne of excluding him.
What is this false premise you speak of?
The vast majority of the data and methodology is available to the public. This page points to a bunch of them. But I guess maybe you're lazy and want it handed to you on a silver platter.
Why don't you take up a collection to pay professional statisticians? The grants climate scientists get don't include funds to pay for that. Most climate scientists are fair statisticians anyway since statistics underlies the majority of their work.
Two specific criticisms of the paper is that it conflated precipitation proxies with temperature proxies and that regional temperature changes were taken as global temperature changes. Those are the sorts of errors that peer review should catch and eliminate but an editor with an agenda got it through anyway.
The journal Climate Research printed a flawed paper that should have never passed peer review without major revisions. Then the publisher refused to retract the paper. If I were a scientist why would I want to associate myself in any way with a journal that would do such a thing?
Nope. Sea ice around the Antarctic continent has increased somewhat but the ice sheet on the continent is still losing ice. The net is negative.
So far my religion hasn't killed for its beliefs. Of course I'm the only member.
The current North Atlantic hurricane season is only about half over. So far there have been 9 named tropical storms, 3 hurricanes and 2 major hurricanes. The 1950 to 2000 average was 9.6 named storms, 5.9 hurricanes and 2.3 major hurricanes. Based on that it's likely that this will be an above average year.
No, the ocean rises at the rate it rises. We have very accurate measurements of sea level rise from satellites. The two primary contributors to SLR are thermal expansion and glacial ice melt. This just changes the proportions between the two.
But the total volume of ice in the Arctic is lower than it was in 2007 & 2008. Volume is probably more important in the long run than extent since the thickness of the ice is an indicator of how long it's likely to last.