The paper notes that there are four new ocean heat content estimates and all have a larger OHC trend than the observations published in IPCC AR5.
But none of that says anything about acceleration. The paper does note that "All four recent studies show that the rate of ocean warming for the upper 2000 m has accelerated in the decades after 1991 to 0.55 to 0.68 W m^2", but far from "Accelerating Faster Than Thought", instead it notes "The recent OHC warming
estimates are quite similar
to the average of CMIP5 models, both for
the late 1950s until present and during the
1971–2010 period highlighted in AR5"
The fault seems to be in the original NYT article. The line "The results converged at an estimate of ocean warming that was higher than the I.P.C.C. predicted and more in line with the climate models." seems especially confused since the paper referenced the same CMIP5 models that are referenced in IPCC AR5.
It's considered rent seeking by libertarians. The free market should be able to charge market value. Information does not want to be free and furthermore hates to be anthropomorphised. Etc.
The summary is not so nice, because it left out an important detail: Where the eclipse will be visible.
That, and the small fact that this is (reportedly) another harbinger of the end times. CBN has the Christian perspective: http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cw...
If you get a $4,000 refund, you are a moron who knows nothing about Tax Planning.
I think you're missing the point. I'm referring to how much you take home with reformed tax bill relative to before - nothing to do with withholding.
For reference, the majority of people - those making under $91,700 — will receive about $400, on average. Nowhere near the $8000 they are borrowing from their kids.
In the 70s, we thought we were gonna have another ice age.
In the '70s we thought that a doubling of CO2 would lead to 2-3C warming. That's exactly what we're seeing. That's why the observed warming on the right side of this graph is vertical. Here's an Exxon scientist in 1978:
"What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the Greenhouse Effect predicts that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2 C to 3 C over most of the Earth. The model also predicts that the temperature increase near the poles may be two to three times this value.
- J.F. Black, Products Research Division, Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
Keep in mind that the tax reform will add about $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit, so this is money you are borrowing (with interest) from your future self, or more likely your kids.
There are about 125 million households in the USA, so each family owns about $8000 of that deficit. If your refund has increased by >$8000 per year then this reform was made for you.
If your refund is only $4000/year, then you are borrowing $8000 from your kids. Someone richer than you gets $4000 and you get to keep the other $4000.
If you invest that money and end up paying your kids back (with interest) then they should have no reason to resent you. But if you blow that money, then even if you are one of the families who gets >8000/year, that benefit is gained on the back of your kids future.
Not sure that he did, but: "In 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that cities around the country experienced a record number of flooding events related to high tides, according to the National Climate Report. More than a quarter of coastal locations tied or set new records for the number of flooding days. And in 2018, flooding on the US coastline is expected to be 60% higher than it was just 20 years ago." - https://www.businessinsider.co...
But if we are talking about the arctic then we are talking about WEATHER and not CLIMATE.
As has been said over and over, local weather is not proof of climate change or the lack of climate change.
climate -
noun -
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Perhaps you are thinking of global warming? (which, as the name suggests, refers to global average temperature and is not specific to any particular region).
This is it exactly. Services like itunes and spotify, as well as sites like youtube and facebook have leveled the playing field for artists. People are finding music by artists that they would never discover on the radio or at the record store. My son in law has a band, and they are really good. But there is no way that a major label will pick them up. He told me last night they might have a spot on spotify.
I wish your son luck. He may have a better shot on spotify if he's willing to fork out ‘playlist payola’: "The only problem is that the biggest playlists on Spotify aren’t organic, they’re bought-and-sold like radio playlists of old. Which means it’s nearly impossible to get discovered with great music alone (just like before)." - https://www.digitalmusicnews.c...
P.S. you should post your son's band page. Can't hurt.
The music scene in Canada 10 years ago was second to none. Bands like Arcade Fire, Stars, Deadly Snakes, Feist, Metric, Broken Social Scene, etc, etc, etc, plus dozens and dozens of smaller bands and labels. This was after 40 years of cancon regulations so I'm not sure you can blame cancon for the current state of affairs. Add the fact that no one listens to radio any more and cancon rules don't apply to streaming services - the argument could be made that the lack of cancon rules for new mediums is a part of the problem.
Also, I don't think what is happening now is limited to Canada. Smaller artists around the world are feeling the pinch. The current market seems to have been built to prop up the top five labels at the expense of the larger ecosystem.
It's the legal streaming sites that are killing the music industry. Local artists were able to make a living and even thrive 10 years ago during the period of rampant piracy. Streaming seems to do well for the top 100 artists, but is killing the local music scene. One local artist laments "This song has been in the TOP 20 charts (CBC Radio 2 & 3) for 10 weeks, climbed to #3. In 2018 that equals $44.99 in sales."
This is an artist that was previously able to make a living through digital downloads. The ecosystem was much healthier in the rampant piracy years of the 2000s.
Perhaps NPR is the gold standard for reporting and we should hold all journals to their standards. On the other hand, it may be a bit hyperbolic to cite a single case of a journal failing to meet another media organizations ethics guidelines and claim that the press in general are "Simply denying everything and refusing to make any reasonable reforms".
You don't use anonymous sources because they can't be fact checked by third party sources which means you could just make it all up. They do that all the time now.
You're wrong on both accounts. Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking that big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to the citizens. Think "Deep Throat" and Watergate.
And contrary to your claim that use of anonymous sources is on the rise, it looks like the opposite is true: “Over the recent decades, quality news organizations have been less and less inclined to use anonymous sources, and more and more inclined to set guidelines for reporters and editors about these decisions,” - Ivor Shapiro, Associate Dean at the Ryerson school of journalism.
The error was _not_ found by a 'climate scientist'.
He certainly styles himself as such. Nicholas Lewis, an independent Climate Science Researcher, based in the UK. Quoting https://www.nicholaslewis.org/.
Not only that, he's referenced in the latest IPCC report as an authority.on climate sensitivity. I'm not sure how much more mainstream you can be? For example.
When the prior distribution
fails to taper off for high sensitivities, as is the case for uniform
priors (Frame et al., 2005), this leads to long tails (Frame et al., 2005;
Annan and Hargreaves, 2011; Lewis, 2013). Uniform priors have been
criticized (e.g., Annan and Hargreaves, 2011; Pueyo, 2012; Lewis, 2013)
since results assuming a uniform prior in ECS translates instead into a
strongly structured prior on climate feedback parameter and vice versa
(Frame et al., 2005; Pueyo, 2012). Objective Bayesian analyses attempt
to avoid this paradox by using a prior distribution that is invariant
to parameter transforms and rescaling, for example, a Jeffreys prior
(Lewis, 2013).
the new Model A+ has a 1.4GHz 64-bit quad-core processor, and you'll also get dual-band Wi-Fi (2.4GHz + 5 GHz), a feature that was missing from the previous A+.
Figure 2 gives running means. The long term trend is up, but the paper suggests that only data after 1985 is robust. The trend since 1985 has been "flat to downward, but this time period is not sufficiently long for a credible conclusion."
Additionally, this is all consistent with the subject paper which found higher precipitation, but not higher wind speed (ACE measures the second only): "We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity."
It's worth noting that the same method suggests that "future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally).
Slashdot Mirror
This study is claiming that a few tenths of a degree difference are destroying ecosystems
That's the average temp across the oceans and over 2000 feet deep, but the heat is not distributed evenly.
The paper notes that there are four new ocean heat content estimates and all have a larger OHC trend than the observations published in IPCC AR5.
But none of that says anything about acceleration. The paper does note that "All four recent studies show that the rate of ocean warming for the upper 2000 m has accelerated in the decades after 1991 to 0.55 to 0.68 W m^2", but far from "Accelerating Faster Than Thought", instead it notes "The recent OHC warming estimates are quite similar to the average of CMIP5 models, both for the late 1950s until present and during the 1971–2010 period highlighted in AR5"
The fault seems to be in the original NYT article. The line "The results converged at an estimate of ocean warming that was higher than the I.P.C.C. predicted and more in line with the climate models." seems especially confused since the paper referenced the same CMIP5 models that are referenced in IPCC AR5.
"oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago."
or the papers abstract:
"Recent estimates of observed warming resemble those seen in models, indicating that models reliably project changes in OHC."
must be wrong...
In what way is it "radical"?
It's considered rent seeking by libertarians. The free market should be able to charge market value. Information does not want to be free and furthermore hates to be anthropomorphised. Etc.
The summary is not so nice, because it left out an important detail: Where the eclipse will be visible.
That, and the small fact that this is (reportedly) another harbinger of the end times. CBN has the Christian perspective: http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cw...
If you get a $4,000 refund, you are a moron who knows nothing about Tax Planning.
I think you're missing the point. I'm referring to how much you take home with reformed tax bill relative to before - nothing to do with withholding.
For reference, the majority of people - those making under $91,700 — will receive about $400, on average. Nowhere near the $8000 they are borrowing from their kids.
You've taken no account for a growing economy
Not true. The estimated $1,000,000,000,000 cost of the tax incorporates the growing economy.
In the 70s, we thought we were gonna have another ice age.
In the '70s we thought that a doubling of CO2 would lead to 2-3C warming. That's exactly what we're seeing. That's why the observed warming on the right side of this graph is vertical. Here's an Exxon scientist in 1978:
"What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the Greenhouse Effect predicts that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2 C to 3 C over most of the Earth. The model also predicts that the temperature increase near the poles may be two to three times this value.
- J.F. Black, Products Research Division, Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
https://davidappell.blogspot.c...
Keep in mind that the tax reform will add about $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit, so this is money you are borrowing (with interest) from your future self, or more likely your kids.
There are about 125 million households in the USA, so each family owns about $8000 of that deficit. If your refund has increased by >$8000 per year then this reform was made for you.
If your refund is only $4000/year, then you are borrowing $8000 from your kids. Someone richer than you gets $4000 and you get to keep the other $4000.
If you invest that money and end up paying your kids back (with interest) then they should have no reason to resent you. But if you blow that money, then even if you are one of the families who gets >8000/year, that benefit is gained on the back of your kids future.
Are you sure?
We've erased 8000 years of cooling in decades. Can you guess what the next few have in store?
Not sure that he did, but: "In 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that cities around the country experienced a record number of flooding events related to high tides, according to the National Climate Report. More than a quarter of coastal locations tied or set new records for the number of flooding days. And in 2018, flooding on the US coastline is expected to be 60% higher than it was just 20 years ago." - https://www.businessinsider.co...
But if we are talking about the arctic then we are talking about WEATHER and not CLIMATE.
As has been said over and over, local weather is not proof of climate change or the lack of climate change.
climate - noun - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Perhaps you are thinking of global warming? (which, as the name suggests, refers to global average temperature and is not specific to any particular region).
And yet Canadians can expect to live ~5 years longer than USians: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Hopefully Germany will take note. They abandoned nuclear after the Fukushima disaster and effectively abandoned their Energiewende.
This is it exactly. Services like itunes and spotify, as well as sites like youtube and facebook have leveled the playing field for artists. People are finding music by artists that they would never discover on the radio or at the record store. My son in law has a band, and they are really good. But there is no way that a major label will pick them up. He told me last night they might have a spot on spotify.
I wish your son luck. He may have a better shot on spotify if he's willing to fork out ‘playlist payola’: "The only problem is that the biggest playlists on Spotify aren’t organic, they’re bought-and-sold like radio playlists of old. Which means it’s nearly impossible to get discovered with great music alone (just like before)." - https://www.digitalmusicnews.c...
P.S. you should post your son's band page. Can't hurt.
The music scene in Canada 10 years ago was second to none. Bands like Arcade Fire, Stars, Deadly Snakes, Feist, Metric, Broken Social Scene, etc, etc, etc, plus dozens and dozens of smaller bands and labels. This was after 40 years of cancon regulations so I'm not sure you can blame cancon for the current state of affairs. Add the fact that no one listens to radio any more and cancon rules don't apply to streaming services - the argument could be made that the lack of cancon rules for new mediums is a part of the problem.
Also, I don't think what is happening now is limited to Canada. Smaller artists around the world are feeling the pinch. The current market seems to have been built to prop up the top five labels at the expense of the larger ecosystem.
It's the legal streaming sites that are killing the music industry. Local artists were able to make a living and even thrive 10 years ago during the period of rampant piracy. Streaming seems to do well for the top 100 artists, but is killing the local music scene. One local artist laments "This song has been in the TOP 20 charts (CBC Radio 2 & 3) for 10 weeks, climbed to #3. In 2018 that equals $44.99 in sales."
This is an artist that was previously able to make a living through digital downloads. The ecosystem was much healthier in the rampant piracy years of the 2000s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - Dr Elvin Atombender
Perhaps NPR is the gold standard for reporting and we should hold all journals to their standards. On the other hand, it may be a bit hyperbolic to cite a single case of a journal failing to meet another media organizations ethics guidelines and claim that the press in general are "Simply denying everything and refusing to make any reasonable reforms".
You don't use anonymous sources because they can't be fact checked by third party sources which means you could just make it all up. They do that all the time now.
You're wrong on both accounts. Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking that big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to the citizens. Think "Deep Throat" and Watergate.
And contrary to your claim that use of anonymous sources is on the rise, it looks like the opposite is true: “Over the recent decades, quality news organizations have been less and less inclined to use anonymous sources, and more and more inclined to set guidelines for reporters and editors about these decisions,” - Ivor Shapiro, Associate Dean at the Ryerson school of journalism.
He certainly styles himself as such. Nicholas Lewis, an independent Climate Science Researcher, based in the UK. Quoting https://www.nicholaslewis.org/.
Not only that, he's referenced in the latest IPCC report as an authority.on climate sensitivity. I'm not sure how much more mainstream you can be? For example.
When the prior distribution fails to taper off for high sensitivities, as is the case for uniform priors (Frame et al., 2005), this leads to long tails (Frame et al., 2005; Annan and Hargreaves, 2011; Lewis, 2013). Uniform priors have been criticized (e.g., Annan and Hargreaves, 2011; Pueyo, 2012; Lewis, 2013) since results assuming a uniform prior in ECS translates instead into a strongly structured prior on climate feedback parameter and vice versa (Frame et al., 2005; Pueyo, 2012). Objective Bayesian analyses attempt to avoid this paradox by using a prior distribution that is invariant to parameter transforms and rescaling, for example, a Jeffreys prior (Lewis, 2013).
Etc...
No. Did you read the paper? It is consistent with the observations.
the new Model A+ has a 1.4GHz 64-bit quad-core processor, and you'll also get dual-band Wi-Fi (2.4GHz + 5 GHz), a feature that was missing from the previous A+.
Also comes with a sense of humour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.
Here's a paper showing global ACE: https://www.casact.org/pubs/fo...
Figure 2 gives running means. The long term trend is up, but the paper suggests that only data after 1985 is robust. The trend since 1985 has been "flat to downward, but this time period is not sufficiently long for a credible conclusion."
Additionally, this is all consistent with the subject paper which found higher precipitation, but not higher wind speed (ACE measures the second only): "We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity."
It's worth noting that the same method suggests that "future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally).
...12,000 years ago we were coming out of an ice age - and have been doing so since.
"Have been doing so since? Only if you ignore the last 6000 years.