The whole Lac Megantic thing happened because the train lost pressure to its brakes.
But this is a failure mode that should have been fixed since the Armagh rail disaster in 1889! Train brakes are supposed to need pressure to keep them off.
Also, I should point out that you are still incorrect: that particular chart still isn't of monthly "anomaly", it is the global mean.
From WFT:
The main temperature series we have on this site - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS - are all expressed as monthly temperature anomalies from a defined baseline period.
[ my emphasis]
Didn't you think it strange that the "global mean temperature" hovers between -0.1 and 0.9?
I did, however, spend about 20 minutes yesterday trying to figure out how to do some simple data manipulation in LibreOffice Calc at an organisation that didn't use MS Office. It turns out that the on-line help in Calc is so good that if you search for the name of a function it doesn't find it. Also, it actually is on-line, meaning if your Internet connection is slow or down, your basic "productivity" software is broken.
Did you forget to install the libreoffice-help-en-us package?
As a result, on 9-11 (2001) it was Bill Clinton's appointee George Tenet (Democrat) serrving as CIA director and NOT some Republican Bush appointee.
That may explain why the CIA attempted to warn the White House multiple times. What explains the White House ignoring the warnings? "Oh, it can't be true, Tenet is a Dem!"
I did say "on average" rather than get into details about this relatively short period of time where things are warming up to the new equibrium temperature.
That would be true if the CO2 concentration had jumped at some point in the past and the temperature had reached/was approaching equilibrium.
But in fact the CO2 concentration continues to rise and we are not yet at the equilibrium temperature for the current concentration, never mind whatever it's going to get to.
That "short period" is the next couple of hundred years.
What it does mean is that there's ample evidence that the climate has changed a large number of times in the past, long before humanity was able to throw huge quantities of CO2 into the air, so the fact that it's currently getting warmer isn't sufficient evidence in and of itself to prove that humanity is responsible.
What we discover from exaining past climate that it has changed when something made it change. One of the things that has made it change in the past has been a change in atmospheric CO2. When we compare the current climate change with past climate changes the only thing we find changing today is the atmospheric CO2 concentration (all the other factors would be leading to a gradual cooling). We know that atmospheric CO2 increase is largely due to our burning fossil fuels. What more evidence do you need?
they're speaking of anthropogenic global warming, not the more profound effects we have on our environment like desertification, habitat destruction, or pollution.
But that is spending on "emissions mitigation and climate adaptation actions", not science.
(KeensMustard somewhat overestimates the EU population, it's half a billion, not a billion. Planned spending on climate change relates action is about 384 EUR per capita, ten times his estimate).
Slashdot Mirror
And, in the oxymoron stakes:
meaningful self-regulation
is a clear winner.
What about brakes?
The whole Lac Megantic thing happened because the train lost pressure to its brakes.
But this is a failure mode that should have been fixed since the Armagh rail disaster in 1889! Train brakes are supposed to need pressure to keep them off.
drive something that goes from 0-60 in 24 seconds flat
2012 Tesla model S 0-60 5.9 seconds.
slashdot's glorious reputation
The funniest post on slashdot, ever!
Per capita is not a cop-out.
If it were a country could cut its emissions by splitting in two.
By lopping off the Medieval Warming Period,
[ Citation needed ]
I've lived in Florida for 30 years. I don't think that's weird.
I think the fact that you've lived in Florida for 30 years is pretty weird.
"Climate change" was a heritage foundation focus group identified term to make the phenomenon seem less scary to average americans.
Where's the evidence for this claim?
There is none, because it's not true.
It wasn't the Heritage Foundation, it was Frank Luntz.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Also, I should point out that you are still incorrect: that particular chart still isn't of monthly "anomaly", it is the global mean.
From WFT:
The main temperature series we have on this site - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS - are all expressed as monthly temperature anomalies from a defined baseline period.
[ my emphasis]
Didn't you think it strange that the "global mean temperature" hovers between -0.1 and 0.9?
Putin started by disarming Ukraine (Ukraine had loads of nuclear weapons before they stupidly let Putin take them away)
Vladimir Putin, President of Russia from 31 December 1999 (acting) - 7 May 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
So Putin managed to get Ukraine to disarm three years before he took power.
Idiot.
No, it doesn't. And it should.
I dunno. Tell me what you think is an obvious topic.
I did, however, spend about 20 minutes yesterday trying to figure out how to do some simple data manipulation in LibreOffice Calc at an organisation that didn't use MS Office. It turns out that the on-line help in Calc is so good that if you search for the name of a function it doesn't find it. Also, it actually is on-line, meaning if your Internet connection is slow or down, your basic "productivity" software is broken.
Did you forget to install the libreoffice-help-en-us package?
20% of 960GEUR is 192GEUR, not 30GEUR.
Over a six year period. Annually, it's 34 billion euro per year.
You're right. My bad.
a lot of companies made a shit-ton of money off of it.
and that is supposed to be a bad thing now?
As a result, on 9-11 (2001) it was Bill Clinton's appointee George Tenet (Democrat) serrving as CIA director and NOT some Republican Bush appointee.
That may explain why the CIA attempted to warn the White House multiple times. What explains the White House ignoring the warnings? "Oh, it can't be true, Tenet is a Dem!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
Anything is a pollutant of there's too much of it in the wrong place.
I did say "on average" rather than get into details about this relatively short period of time where things are warming up to the new equibrium temperature.
That would be true if the CO2 concentration had jumped at some point in the past and the temperature had reached/was approaching equilibrium.
But in fact the CO2 concentration continues to rise and we are not yet at the equilibrium temperature for the current concentration, never mind whatever it's going to get to.
That "short period" is the next couple of hundred years.
What it does mean is that there's ample evidence that the climate has changed a large number of times in the past, long before humanity was able to throw huge quantities of CO2 into the air, so the fact that it's currently getting warmer isn't sufficient evidence in and of itself to prove that humanity is responsible.
What we discover from exaining past climate that it has changed when something made it change. One of the things that has made it change in the past has been a change in atmospheric CO2. When we compare the current climate change with past climate changes the only thing we find changing today is the atmospheric CO2 concentration (all the other factors would be leading to a gradual cooling). We know that atmospheric CO2 increase is largely due to our burning fossil fuels. What more evidence do you need?
they're speaking of anthropogenic global warming, not the more profound effects we have on our environment like desertification, habitat destruction, or pollution.
Concern troll is concerned.
And the EU is dumping 30 billion euros every year through 2020 on explicit climate change related spending. That's a lot of money too.
Nope, sorry:
The EU has agreed that at least 20% of its €960 billion budget for the 2014-2020 period should be spent on climate change-related action. This represents around a threefold increase from the 6-8% share in 2007-2013.
20% of 960GEUR is 192GEUR, not 30GEUR.
But that is spending on "emissions mitigation and climate adaptation actions", not science.
(KeensMustard somewhat overestimates the EU population, it's half a billion, not a billion. Planned spending on climate change relates action is about 384 EUR per capita, ten times his estimate).
Show me a single climate model put forth or espoused by Al Gore that has proven to be accurate for any significant amount of time into the future.
Why, or even how, would Al Gore "put forth" a climate model? Since when has he been a climate modeller?
Why would, or even could, Al Gore "espouse" a climate model? I thought he was already married.
in a price driven world, cheaper things have a cheaper cost because they require less resource input.
If you ignore externalities.
The "cancer problem" is that everyone dies. When you stop them dying of scarlet fever (aka strep throat) they die (50 years later) of cancer.
I don't understand. It's on kickstarter. Of course it's a scam. If it was real they would have got funding from real investors.
Does anybody still believe in kickstarter?