New Orleans is a good example of a city that probably should be considered for abandoning the next time it floods.
New Orleans is one of the major ports in the USA at the mouth of the Mississippi River. A significant portion of the nation's commerce moves through it. It probably makes sense to keep it going as long as possible.
Compared to the soil in the most productive agricultural areas the soil in the vast forests and tundra of Russia, Alaska and Canada is very poor and it would take centuries for it to become good soil.
While I agree with you that human extinction is unlikely if we push the climate to the point where large swathes of the oceans become anoxic it could happen.
The Year Without a Summer was an agricultural disaster. Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world".[5][6] The unusual climatic aberrations of 1816 had the greatest effect on most of New England, Atlantic Canada, and parts of western Europe.
Fortunately the effects of the Tambora eruption didn't last too long but there was a lot of hardship in the meantime.
If it's disinformation about science then science gets to decide. If you can use science to show that it's not disinformation then more power to you.
If the evidence is so overwhelming would it not be a much more sane and rational route to simply publicly prove them wrong instead of limiting free speech?
Pretty much everything the climate science deniers have brought up has been proven wrong and on the rare occasions when they had something right or a valid point it has quickly been incorporated into the science.
The only one I know of that's being investigated for supporting disinformation is Exxon-Mobile. Their own internal scientists told them back in the 1970s about the potential for increased CO2 to cause global warming.
About every decade or three or four, there's been some new impending climate doom predicted. Seriously, I've been around a good while and I've heard and watched this all before. The only difference is that the marketing's gotten slicker and shriller, and schools don't really teach crap anymore, they're babysitters.
The problem with anthropogenic global warming is that it's a slow disaster. The changes from year to year are mostly subtle. By the time the effects become to obvious for most people to ignore it's way to late to stop them. So warning about the potential for global warming in the 1980s made sense. The sooner something is done the less drastic the ultimate effects will be.
It's all about wealth transfer.
Ah, now I think we get to the meat of your objection. If worrying about money colors your perception of the science you're in trouble because you can't change the real world that science studies. Have you ever stopped to think about how much it might cost you if some of the predictions of climate science come true. If it gets bad enough it could cost us much of our civilization.
Don't worry, we're not after run-of-the-mill climate change denialists like you, just the ones who continued to spread disinformation, even though they knew better, to dupe people like you.
When I talk about models I'm mostly talking about the Couple Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Different models have different strengths and weaknesses and I'm not sure it's possible to pick any one model that is the best.
One thing that is possible is to cherry pick individual model runs from an ensemble of runs that happen by coincidence to match real world natural variability (especially of ENSO). when you do that the model output matches the observations quite well.
Here is an interesting article "Comparing CMIP5 & observations". It shows that observations are within the the ranges of the CMIP5 output although mostly at the lower end of the range but 2015 has pushed observations into the middle of the range.
One thing that has come up lately that may be an issue with comparing models and observations is that models project the 2 meter air temperature over the globe while observations use the 2 meter air temperature over land but use the sea surface temperature for the ocean area. It sounds like there will be a paper out sometime this year on this issue. It should be interesting.
Don't worry, if the Sun goes into a period similar to the Maunder Minimum at most it delays the warming by a decade or so. There is no mini ice age or real ice age in the offing.
Temperatures are well within the 2 sigma range of temperatures projected by climate models. If ice melt is out of the 2 sigma range it's because there has been more melt than predicted, not less. Sea level rise is also above predictions.
That's the Holy Hockeysticks, thank you very much. There are over a dozen different ones now and they all show pretty much the same thing.
Consensus is not something that scientists pay attention to to any great degree. Rather it is something useful for the layman in understanding where the science is in the field. For scientists consensus amounts to something they pretty much agree on and don't argue about any more.
Meanwhile the Earth continues to warm, as predicted. Ice continues to melt, as predicted. Sea level continues to rise, as predicted. The oceans continue to acidify, as predicted.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is rather fuzzy and has never been explicitly settled. If you are a citizen of the United States of America at the moment of your birth that's good enough for me regardless of where you were born.
I would say that only applies if they were classified before they were sent to a private server. I haven't seen any evidence of that but I suppose if there was the FBI will find it.
The Hillary getting 6 of 6 coin tosses was a bogus story. There were a lot more than 6 coin tosses in Iowa that night and Bernie got his fair share of them.
As far as allegations of fraud in the Franken election they are just allegations by people who didn't like the results. Show up with some actual proof of fraud and I'll start to listen.
What happened to David Petraeus who was charged with mishandling classified information while with the CIA? He got what was essentially a slap on the wrist.
I don't like the idea of all of the primaries being held on the same day but I would favor the idea of a regional primary day. Divide the country into 6 or 8 regions and have all of the states in that region hold their primaries on the same day. That would be more cost effective for the candidates and allow for some changes in momentum. I guess I'd still be ok with Iowa and New Hampshire holding their processes first to keep them happy.
Slashdot Mirror
New Orleans is a good example of a city that probably should be considered for abandoning the next time it floods.
New Orleans is one of the major ports in the USA at the mouth of the Mississippi River. A significant portion of the nation's commerce moves through it. It probably makes sense to keep it going as long as possible.
Compared to the soil in the most productive agricultural areas the soil in the vast forests and tundra of Russia, Alaska and Canada is very poor and it would take centuries for it to become good soil.
While I agree with you that human extinction is unlikely if we push the climate to the point where large swathes of the oceans become anoxic it could happen.
The year without a summer.
The Year Without a Summer was an agricultural disaster. Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world".[5][6] The unusual climatic aberrations of 1816 had the greatest effect on most of New England, Atlantic Canada, and parts of western Europe.
Fortunately the effects of the Tambora eruption didn't last too long but there was a lot of hardship in the meantime.
Who decides what is or is not "disinformation"?
If it's disinformation about science then science gets to decide. If you can use science to show that it's not disinformation then more power to you.
If the evidence is so overwhelming would it not be a much more sane and rational route to simply publicly prove them wrong instead of limiting free speech?
Pretty much everything the climate science deniers have brought up has been proven wrong and on the rare occasions when they had something right or a valid point it has quickly been incorporated into the science.
The only one I know of that's being investigated for supporting disinformation is Exxon-Mobile. Their own internal scientists told them back in the 1970s about the potential for increased CO2 to cause global warming.
About every decade or three or four, there's been some new impending climate doom predicted. Seriously, I've been around a good while and I've heard and watched this all before. The only difference is that the marketing's gotten slicker and shriller, and schools don't really teach crap anymore, they're babysitters.
The problem with anthropogenic global warming is that it's a slow disaster. The changes from year to year are mostly subtle. By the time the effects become to obvious for most people to ignore it's way to late to stop them. So warning about the potential for global warming in the 1980s made sense. The sooner something is done the less drastic the ultimate effects will be.
It's all about wealth transfer.
Ah, now I think we get to the meat of your objection. If worrying about money colors your perception of the science you're in trouble because you can't change the real world that science studies. Have you ever stopped to think about how much it might cost you if some of the predictions of climate science come true. If it gets bad enough it could cost us much of our civilization.
That might work if we could stop the wind from blowing.
Don't worry, we're not after run-of-the-mill climate change denialists like you, just the ones who continued to spread disinformation, even though they knew better, to dupe people like you.
When I talk about models I'm mostly talking about the Couple Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Different models have different strengths and weaknesses and I'm not sure it's possible to pick any one model that is the best.
One thing that is possible is to cherry pick individual model runs from an ensemble of runs that happen by coincidence to match real world natural variability (especially of ENSO). when you do that the model output matches the observations quite well.
Here is an interesting article "Comparing CMIP5 & observations". It shows that observations are within the the ranges of the CMIP5 output although mostly at the lower end of the range but 2015 has pushed observations into the middle of the range.
One thing that has come up lately that may be an issue with comparing models and observations is that models project the 2 meter air temperature over the globe while observations use the 2 meter air temperature over land but use the sea surface temperature for the ocean area. It sounds like there will be a paper out sometime this year on this issue. It should be interesting.
Don't worry, if the Sun goes into a period similar to the Maunder Minimum at most it delays the warming by a decade or so. There is no mini ice age or real ice age in the offing.
Temperatures are well within the 2 sigma range of temperatures projected by climate models. If ice melt is out of the 2 sigma range it's because there has been more melt than predicted, not less. Sea level rise is also above predictions.
That's the Holy Hockeysticks, thank you very much. There are over a dozen different ones now and they all show pretty much the same thing.
Consensus is not something that scientists pay attention to to any great degree. Rather it is something useful for the layman in understanding where the science is in the field. For scientists consensus amounts to something they pretty much agree on and don't argue about any more.
Meanwhile the Earth continues to warm, as predicted. Ice continues to melt, as predicted. Sea level continues to rise, as predicted. The oceans continue to acidify, as predicted.
The nice thing about the "Church of Climatology" as opposed to those others is that they have actual physical evidence to back up their scriptures.
Ozone in the stratosphere = good
It blocks UV radiation from the Sun and without it there wouldn't be life as we know it on the dry land of Earth.
Ozone in the lower troposphere and at the surface = not so good
It can have serious health effects mainly respiratory in high enough concentrations.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is rather fuzzy and has never been explicitly settled. If you are a citizen of the United States of America at the moment of your birth that's good enough for me regardless of where you were born.
Cruz's mother was an American citizen at the time he was born. That's good enough to establish citizenship anywhere in the world.
I would say that only applies if they were classified before they were sent to a private server. I haven't seen any evidence of that but I suppose if there was the FBI will find it.
I think you got that right.
The guy is a sociopath. He has no sincerely held views, no real beliefs, he's just a pure political animal, a Frank Underwood with eyeliner.
I do think is evangelical views are sincere, which makes him even more unvotable for to me.
I laughed out loud at that!
But although I'd never vote for Cruz for anything ever, he does have the citizenship qualifications to be President. As much as John McCain did.
The Hillary getting 6 of 6 coin tosses was a bogus story. There were a lot more than 6 coin tosses in Iowa that night and Bernie got his fair share of them.
As far as allegations of fraud in the Franken election they are just allegations by people who didn't like the results. Show up with some actual proof of fraud and I'll start to listen.
What happened to David Petraeus who was charged with mishandling classified information while with the CIA? He got what was essentially a slap on the wrist.
I don't like the idea of all of the primaries being held on the same day but I would favor the idea of a regional primary day. Divide the country into 6 or 8 regions and have all of the states in that region hold their primaries on the same day. That would be more cost effective for the candidates and allow for some changes in momentum. I guess I'd still be ok with Iowa and New Hampshire holding their processes first to keep them happy.
No, your side just keeps throwing things at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Sanders is far too principled to run as an independent and take the chance of handing the election to the Republicans.