The ecological havoc that the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull caused was limited to the area around the volcano. It did cause some havoc with European air travel when it pumped some ash into the jet stream but that caused almost no ecological disruption. It wasn't big enough.
Well, I personally don't find temperatures 110 and 120 degree Fahrenheit range all that comfortable. An all time Asian record of 128.3 F in Pakistan is just too much.
We have had a bit more warmth, just not so much over CONUS lately. Asia has been setting records lately. (Scroll down the the Extreme heat wave in Africa and Asia continues to set all-time high temperature records heading.}
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!
And yet both of the papers mentioned were referenced in the IPCC AR4 report. He expressed an opinion on the papers but couldn't keep them out.
You should educate yourself about the carbon cycle. Each year natural processes release around 19 times as much carbon as human emissions but other natural processes also absorb more than 19 times as much carbon. What's left over, between 40 and 50% of human emissions has caused nearly all of the rise from 315 ppm yearly average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere when Keeling started measuring in 1958 to 390 ppm in 2010. That's a 24% increase in atmospheric CO2 in 52 years.
On the subject of small changes having big effects, a 1% change in energy retained by the Earth system is equivalent to nearly 3 centigrade degrees of temperature change*. That's a rather large change for natural biological systems to adapt to.
*Measured from absolute zero the average surface temperature of the Earth is about 278 Kelvin. 1% of that is 2.78 Kelvin.
Statistics are fundamental to many if not most of the fields of physics including atmospheric physics. Most physicists are decent statisticians, they have to be to do their work. Most statisticians don't know squat about physics.
The fact that I am not sitting under 2 km of ice suggests to me that the ice has been melting for quite some time already.
Wait! I thought Greenland was ice free during the MWP! If we've been losing ice for the past 10,000 years where did the 2 miles deep ice currently on Greenland come from?
Even if we were to magically eliminate all C02 from the air, would there be a marked difference?
If we were to magically eliminate all CO2 from the air we would quickly plunge into an ice age on the way to a snowball earth. Even at the depths of the ice ages there was still 180 ppm of CO2 in the air.
Although the knowledge is a bit fuzzy it's not correct to say we have no idea what regulates CO2 levels in 100 ky cycles. CO2 levels are sensitive to temperatures. Orbital variations produce changes in temperatures. The colder an ocean is the more CO2 it can hold per volume. As ocean temperature increases it releases CO2. That's at least part of the explanation.
An interesting little factoid I learned is that the top 10 feet (3 meters) of the ocean contains as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere. The average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 feet. That gives some perspective on how much of a heat sink/buffer the oceans are for global warming.
Most of the incoming radiation from the Sun is in the visible and ultraviolet radiation bands where water vapor and CO2 are basically transparent. The part of that incoming radiation that gets absorbed by the Earth's surface is re-radiated primarily in the infrared bands where is it blocked by water vapor and CO2. Higher levels of water vapor and/or CO2 in the atmosphere will basically slow down the rate of flow of IR radiation from the surface thus causing an increase in temperature there.
No, the burden of proof is on you. Climate scientists have presented their evaluation of what is going on. There is over 95% agreement in the field on the fundamentals (that the warming we've seen since the 1960s is largely due to increased GHG's emitted by humans and that if we keep on with BAU the consequences may be serious to our civilization). It's up to your side to show what they got wrong. Until you do I accept that climate scientists fundamentally know what they're talking about.
It was probably the biggest revamping of health care since Medicare was created in the 1960s. It was a terrible bill in many respects but it's a big improvement in some others.
The problem is the when government regulation does prevent a disaster from happening it becomes a non-event and no one pays any attention to it. It's easy for government to get the blame when things don't go well but they seldom get much credit when thing do go well.
I suspect the next time the subduction zone off of Oregon and Washington gives way it will surpass the New Madrid quake in size. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is very similar to the subduction zone that caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Quake.
For the same reason we didn't have fortified cockpit doors before 9/11. They've been required by Israel since the 1970s and were proposed to the FAA in the 1990s but the industry said "Oh no! They'll cost us money and reduce our competitiveness. We can't have that."
More failures means more data points. That could help us zero in on the cause of failures in deep water drilling operations. (For the clueless that was sarcasm in support of the parent.)
It's like stronger cockpit doors or remotely activated blow out preventers. The industry will say it's too expensive to do that until it's shown that it's too expensive not to. No regulation until it's too late.
I think the greatest obstacle to a functioning government (as we define it) in Afghanistan is the tribal nature of the culture. It has very little to do with money.
Well, the technology on the magnetic tape they are using in an LTO-4 tape cartridge is a far cry from the tapes of 10 years ago. Putting 13300 bits/mm on tape isn't easy.
And the reason they drilled that far below the sea level is because of restrictions on drilling in more shallow water.
Do you have anything to support that assertion? I heard Monday that they relaxed to offshore drilling moratorium to allow permitted shallow water drilling operations to continue. That would seem to put the lie to your statement.
Slashdot Mirror
The ecological havoc that the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull caused was limited to the area around the volcano. It did cause some havoc with European air travel when it pumped some ash into the jet stream but that caused almost no ecological disruption. It wasn't big enough.
Well, I personally don't find temperatures 110 and 120 degree Fahrenheit range all that comfortable. An all time Asian record of 128.3 F in Pakistan is just too much.
We have had a bit more warmth, just not so much over CONUS lately. Asia has been setting records lately. (Scroll down the the Extreme heat wave in Africa and Asia continues to set all-time high temperature records heading.}
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!
And yet both of the papers mentioned were referenced in the IPCC AR4 report. He expressed an opinion on the papers but couldn't keep them out.
You should educate yourself about the carbon cycle. Each year natural processes release around 19 times as much carbon as human emissions but other natural processes also absorb more than 19 times as much carbon. What's left over, between 40 and 50% of human emissions has caused nearly all of the rise from 315 ppm yearly average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere when Keeling started measuring in 1958 to 390 ppm in 2010. That's a 24% increase in atmospheric CO2 in 52 years.
On the subject of small changes having big effects, a 1% change in energy retained by the Earth system is equivalent to nearly 3 centigrade degrees of temperature change*. That's a rather large change for natural biological systems to adapt to.
*Measured from absolute zero the average surface temperature of the Earth is about 278 Kelvin. 1% of that is 2.78 Kelvin.
Statistics are fundamental to many if not most of the fields of physics including atmospheric physics. Most physicists are decent statisticians, they have to be to do their work. Most statisticians don't know squat about physics.
The fact that I am not sitting under 2 km of ice suggests to me that the ice has been melting for quite some time already.
Wait! I thought Greenland was ice free during the MWP! If we've been losing ice for the past 10,000 years where did the 2 miles deep ice currently on Greenland come from?
Even if we were to magically eliminate all C02 from the air, would there be a marked difference?
If we were to magically eliminate all CO2 from the air we would quickly plunge into an ice age on the way to a snowball earth. Even at the depths of the ice ages there was still 180 ppm of CO2 in the air.
A 300 or 400 year bump in temperature is interesting but it doesn't necessarily mean a lot in a 10,000 year temperature record.
Sorry to be off topic but didn't you just break his copyright? Maybe it comes under the category of "fair use" though. )
Although the knowledge is a bit fuzzy it's not correct to say we have no idea what regulates CO2 levels in 100 ky cycles. CO2 levels are sensitive to temperatures. Orbital variations produce changes in temperatures. The colder an ocean is the more CO2 it can hold per volume. As ocean temperature increases it releases CO2. That's at least part of the explanation.
An interesting little factoid I learned is that the top 10 feet (3 meters) of the ocean contains as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere. The average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 feet. That gives some perspective on how much of a heat sink/buffer the oceans are for global warming.
Most of the incoming radiation from the Sun is in the visible and ultraviolet radiation bands where water vapor and CO2 are basically transparent. The part of that incoming radiation that gets absorbed by the Earth's surface is re-radiated primarily in the infrared bands where is it blocked by water vapor and CO2. Higher levels of water vapor and/or CO2 in the atmosphere will basically slow down the rate of flow of IR radiation from the surface thus causing an increase in temperature there.
No, the burden of proof is on you. Climate scientists have presented their evaluation of what is going on. There is over 95% agreement in the field on the fundamentals (that the warming we've seen since the 1960s is largely due to increased GHG's emitted by humans and that if we keep on with BAU the consequences may be serious to our civilization). It's up to your side to show what they got wrong. Until you do I accept that climate scientists fundamentally know what they're talking about.
Scuttlebutt is that Rahm Emanuel will be resigning after the November election. I hope that's true.
It was probably the biggest revamping of health care since Medicare was created in the 1960s. It was a terrible bill in many respects but it's a big improvement in some others.
The filibuster was so successful at stopping the health care bill that they had to pass it through reconciliation, bypassing the filibuster.
The problem is the when government regulation does prevent a disaster from happening it becomes a non-event and no one pays any attention to it. It's easy for government to get the blame when things don't go well but they seldom get much credit when thing do go well.
I suspect the next time the subduction zone off of Oregon and Washington gives way it will surpass the New Madrid quake in size. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is very similar to the subduction zone that caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Quake.
For the same reason we didn't have fortified cockpit doors before 9/11. They've been required by Israel since the 1970s and were proposed to the FAA in the 1990s but the industry said "Oh no! They'll cost us money and reduce our competitiveness. We can't have that."
More failures means more data points. That could help us zero in on the cause of failures in deep water drilling operations. (For the clueless that was sarcasm in support of the parent.)
It's like stronger cockpit doors or remotely activated blow out preventers. The industry will say it's too expensive to do that until it's shown that it's too expensive not to. No regulation until it's too late.
Isn't Vic Rawls Lou Rawls son?
I think the greatest obstacle to a functioning government (as we define it) in Afghanistan is the tribal nature of the culture. It has very little to do with money.
Well, the technology on the magnetic tape they are using in an LTO-4 tape cartridge is a far cry from the tapes of 10 years ago. Putting 13300 bits/mm on tape isn't easy.
And the reason they drilled that far below the sea level is because of restrictions on drilling in more shallow water.
Do you have anything to support that assertion? I heard Monday that they relaxed to offshore drilling moratorium to allow permitted shallow water drilling operations to continue. That would seem to put the lie to your statement.