This wan't a "demo"! It was a controlled experiment, personally wired up by reputable researchers, who had control of it for the whole time.
No, Rossi was in control of the junction box, and the box of electronics is closed.
And it was monitored by instruments, including electrical instruments and thermal cameras, the whole time.
As you can see from the document that I linked, in the past Rossi has set up a clamp meter around a wire coloured as phase. A scientist, who is not used to tricks would assume the wire coloured earth would not carry a current.
How are you going to introduce this "earth wire"?
From my link: Scientists regard a green wire as a safety earth, and would not expect it to be
used to carry power. Under such a misconnection, there is the risk that metal
parts could become live, and pose a hazard to people nearby.
If Rossi disagrees, he can
arrange
for
an independent
test. It would be very
straightforward to repeat the test with metering in all three wires. This would
show whether the millions of
dollars Rossi is seeking are justified or would be
better spent elsewhere.
Dick Smith offered Rossi $1,000,000 if his invention worked under such conditions, but he refused.
Since he was looking for only $200,000 investments, I assume that the reason he refused is that his invention wouldn't work under such conditions. This is how the "earth wire" is introduced
The devices are fairly small, so it's easy to isolate them from any conceivable unknown energy input. Electricity input can easily be monitored. Output can easily be monitored. If you have done a careful job of isolation, and the output over time is more than the same amount of mass could produce chemically (i.e., even a super-powered chemical battery), then you have a nuclear reaction. It's that simple.
You should have professional magicians look at it.
Yep. And I'm pretty confident that Ian Bryce of the Sydney Skeptics found the trick.
Rossi refused Dick Smith's million dollar challenge, for a short demonstration of the machine in which the power from the earth cable is also measured, as Mr. Smith believed that the wiring may have been "misconnected".
(Details from the Sydney Skeptics thoughts here: Bryce said photos show a current meter on the brown wire, while the
unmeasured green wire lies beside it in plain view. (
See
photo
)
Scientists regard a green wire as a safety earth, and would not expect it to be
used to carry power. Under such a misconnection, there is the risk that metal
parts could become live, and pose a hazard to people nearby.
If Rossi disagrees, he can
arrange
for
an independent
test. It would be very
straightforward to repeat the test with metering in all three wires. This would
show whether the millions of
dollars Rossi is seeking are justified or would be
better spent elsewhere.
Rossi turned him down. If the power is being supplied through the earth wire, and he was at the junction, he would easily be able to perpetrate this hoax.
I really just want to discuss the science and not let this get sucked down the AGW rabbit hole.
Don't you think the specific sea ice data with respect to the location of the population of the Pacific Walruses is a better place to start that the blog of a scientist with an agenda talking generalities?
Don't you think the specific sea ice data with respect to the location of the population of the Pacific Walruses is a better place to start that the blog of a scientist with an agenda talking generalities?
That's the significant thing, Not entire northern hemisphere sea ice extent.
I am simply not one the koolaid drinkers and halfwits chanting along to your mantra. That does not make me wrong, evil, or ignorant.
In this case, you appear to be wrong and ignorant at least. Evil is in the eye of the beholder, but people like you aren't helping the planet. But I agree that we have a correlation and not causation. The causation is probably in the other direction.
I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic.
It's a paper from 1980 about a haulout event in 1978.
The highlighting is done by a person in the pay of the heartland institute, so it likely to be pushing a particularly unscientific agenda. But the paper exists in the scholarly literature. You can often check out the provenance of scholarly papers if you have an internet connection and access to google scholar.
Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses.
From the first line of your linked paper: In October-November 1978, several thousand living walruses came
ashore in at least four localities on St. Lawrence Island where they had not been
present before in this century.
There's a strong implication in that that it is not normal behavior. Note also that the Walruses themselves were not normal: Nearly all of the dead were extremely lean, having
less than half as much subcutaneous fat as healthy animals examined in previous years.
I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.
Okay, The scientists at USGS have said that this is due to the retreat of the sea ice, and you humble claim that this is wrong?
I'm not sure that you're using this word "humble" correctly.
It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF.
I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.
Such as?
The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates.
I must have missed that press release. Do you have a link to it?
The author of the equation itself disavows it.
I didn't know that. Where did you read that?
That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.
It's not obvious how the Drake Equation, which calculates the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which radio-communication might be possible, could be made to yield "5 million species extinct this year." And that number seems about two orders of magnitude greater than the largest of estimates I've seen. The WWF speculates that we might be losing [10,000 per year](http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/), which is nearer three orders of magnitude lower than that number.
So I look forward to you pointing me to this press release that makes all their other work not to be taken seriously in your eyes.
So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?
The ice disappeared North of Alaska, and they moved to land, it is understood. This happened at the very end of August. As you can see from the animation showing sea ice and the location of tagged walruses that I linked in the grandparent post.
As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument.
I'm just showing how you can get to (C) Because of global warming without going through (B) Sea Ice loss. Now the scientists have said that it is due to Sea Ice loss, so they're probably right. I only raise the point because your logic isn't sound on that point either.
Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about.
You seem to have misunderstood the point. I didn't suggest that the water might be harming or irritating the bodies of the walruses. I said that it was harming shellfish that are their food. And that in turn will affect where they go, because they have to go where there is food. And that in turn might cause them to choose land rather than ice.
Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion.;)
Keeping an open mind in my case means believing that the scientists who study this stuff know about it. In your case it means believing that they've made a mistake in attribution that you can spot, but none of them have.
The fact that there have been mass walrus haulouts recorded as early as 1972, indicating fairly clearly that the more recent changes in arctic climate are not the cause of said haulouts?
That all haulouts have the same cause is a strange assumption. Do you have any basis for this?
No, they explained why they guess that. If they did science they'd look at past records and see if they beached themselves in past periods of low ice.
Okay. What makes you think they didn't?
In this case we have periods with less ice then today and they didn't beach themselves.
Big claim. The article doesn't have many of the specific details. Can you show me:
1) At what time the ice extent is believed to be sensitive to walrus haulouts on land in late September
2) How think the ice needs to be to support the Walruses
3) The source data that you have that shows that the ice of that thickness was further from Alaska in periods in which there were no land Haul-outs
We also have periods of more ice where they did.
Are you claiming that all land haul-outs have the same cause?
Do you have any scientific basis for this claim?
So... you see the problem.
Not yet. These guys study these Walruses. They're not just guessing from that news article.
If you look at the movement of the tagged Walruses in the very low ice year of 2012, you can see that a "marginal" sea ice pack remains off the shore of Alaska that they remain with until late September, even though the sea ice extent has retreated far north.
This year even the marginal ice left that area by the start of September, and the Walruses headed to Alaska.
And the first link is that "A" Walruses beach themselves is linked to "B" low sea ice... which fails on analysis.
You haven't convinced me that your analysis is sophisticated enough. I think you're using Northern Summer sea ice extent, where extent is where there is 15% or more sea ice. The Walrus tracking that these scientists have been doing shows that a Walrus can haul out on a block of ice that is more sparse than that.
So you can't even get to "C" which is "because global warming"... Because the link between low sea ice and walruses doesn't pan out.
I don't think sea ice is the only effect on the ecosystem of AGW up there.
Acidification might be causing them to alter where they can find food.
They have beached themselves with more ice and not beached themselves with less ice. So "less ice" = "beaching" fails.
Okay. Where is your Walrus- sufficient sea ice data?
I'd like to check it because it looks a lot like you're just fucking assuming that it is the same as the sea ice extent, and it looks like you're assuming that the whole hemisphere's extent is a good proxy for the near Alaska sea ice.
The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.
Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.
Unlike seals, walrus cannot swim indefinitely and must rest. They use their tusks to "haul out," or pull themselves onto ice or rocks.
As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea, the body of water north of the Bering Strait.
In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom.
note these very recent incidents of large walrus herds and associated mortality events (2009, 2011 and 2014) have not coincided with the lowest levels of summer sea ice in the area, which occurred in 2007 and 2012.
Why would autumn haulout events coincide with minimum summer sea ice extent?
If the scientists studying this haulout say that it's north of the continental shelf, and this caused the haulout on land, you're going to need some pretty good evidence that it is not north of the continental shelf.
Looking at overall minimum extents isn't going to cut the mustard.
Also, don't get your science from science-denial industry funded websites. They're full of misinformation.
You're likely to get biased science if you go to a paid global warming denial website rather than a pro-scientific one.
The attempts to claim that the past events (and the only one of a similar size was in 1979) must have had the same cause as the current one doesn't follow.
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
They do describe the mechanism that links the retreat of the sea ice to walrus haulouts on land:
The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.
Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.
Unlike seals, walrus cannot swim indefinitely and must rest. They use their tusks to "haul out," or pull themselves onto ice or rocks.
As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea, the body of water north of the Bering Strait.
In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom.
I mean if everyone who was worried about AGW reduced and sequestored carbon, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
There is a limit to current sequestration technologies. You can't keep planting trees, because you run out of space.
To achieve the 80-90% reductions required to halt the growth of atmospheric CO2, in the medium term, you need to clean the grid, and use electricity for transportation.
And the latter does very little without the former.
An individual cannot clean fossil fuel power generation off the grid. Government has to be involved.
As far as "displaced tens of millions of people per year" goes, this includes Syrian refugees who were forced off of their farms due to climate-change induced drought; triggering the Syrian civil war.
I think you might be mistaken about that.
The 2014 report doesn't mention Syria at all.
This study doesn't show a thinning of the sea ice, but of the ice sheet. It would be tricky to measure the thickness of sea ice using gravity variations, because in only barely floats.
The reason the deniers are wrong about sea ice extent is because they're choosing to only look at the southern hemisphere, where there is nearly no sea ice. The global trend in sea ice is downwards. I think that that does count as cherry picking.
No, he's buying offsets from companies that are sequestering.
He's running a scam to increase his wealth.
He made a lot of money from when he was working for Apple. And the movie was a bit of a blockbuster. He has made some savvy investments in green companies too, but he's also donated millions to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.
Reading between the lines, you have two points to make. One that you could argue that there isn't global warming while the ice sheets are melting so long as there is a large cooling elsewhere. And two that you don't find that this is a very compelling argument because there isn't such a cooling.
And sure. Ice sheet mass loss is indicative of regional warming, not global warming. 500 cubic kilometres represents about 46 trillion kilowatt hours. Incidentally, at current average Australian electricity prices, that would cost about the same as the GDP of the entire country for about 6.8 years.
It also represents about 0.01 W/m^2 for one year for the entire surface of the earth, or about 1-2% of the total energy imbalance. Possible to hide in other places, in principle, but you'd probably notice. And continued sea level rise is a bit of a cincher.
Lost it when you said you believe Gore is "carbon neutral."
Thanks for reading the whole thing, but that wasn't the most important point. I hope you also noted how we know that it is the enhanced greenhouse effect and not the sun that is causing the current warming. Perhaps you even noticed that some of your language is the same as that developed by PR groups with a counter-scientific agenda to market.
Just because one buys carbon credits doesn't mean that all the carbon one released magically goes away!
No, it doesn't go away. But if you sequester the same amount of CO2 that you emit, then the net effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is zero.
Hahahahaha. You are seriously a dumbass to swallow that shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, possibly. The earth wire requires less obvious equipment.
This wan't a "demo"! It was a controlled experiment, personally wired up by reputable researchers, who had control of it for the whole time.
No, Rossi was in control of the junction box, and the box of electronics is closed.
And it was monitored by instruments, including electrical instruments and thermal cameras, the whole time.
As you can see from the document that I linked, in the past Rossi has set up a clamp meter around a wire coloured as phase. A scientist, who is not used to tricks would assume the wire coloured earth would not carry a current.
How are you going to introduce this "earth wire"?
From my link:
Scientists regard a green wire as a safety earth, and would not expect it to be used to carry power. Under such a misconnection, there is the risk that metal parts could become live, and pose a hazard to people nearby. If Rossi disagrees, he can arrange for an independent test. It would be very straightforward to repeat the test with metering in all three wires. This would show whether the millions of dollars Rossi is seeking are justified or would be better spent elsewhere.
Dick Smith offered Rossi $1,000,000 if his invention worked under such conditions, but he refused. Since he was looking for only $200,000 investments, I assume that the reason he refused is that his invention wouldn't work under such conditions. This is how the "earth wire" is introduced
The devices are fairly small, so it's easy to isolate them from any conceivable unknown energy input. Electricity input can easily be monitored. Output can easily be monitored. If you have done a careful job of isolation, and the output over time is more than the same amount of mass could produce chemically (i.e., even a super-powered chemical battery), then you have a nuclear reaction. It's that simple.
Electricity input can be supplied sneakily. Such as through the earth wire.
You should have professional magicians look at it.
Yep. And I'm pretty confident that Ian Bryce of the Sydney Skeptics found the trick.
Rossi refused Dick Smith's million dollar challenge, for a short demonstration of the machine in which the power from the earth cable is also measured, as Mr. Smith believed that the wiring may have been "misconnected".
(Details from the Sydney Skeptics thoughts here: Bryce said photos show a current meter on the brown wire, while the unmeasured green wire lies beside it in plain view. ( See photo ) Scientists regard a green wire as a safety earth, and would not expect it to be used to carry power. Under such a misconnection, there is the risk that metal parts could become live, and pose a hazard to people nearby. If Rossi disagrees, he can arrange for an independent test. It would be very straightforward to repeat the test with metering in all three wires. This would show whether the millions of dollars Rossi is seeking are justified or would be better spent elsewhere.
Rossi turned him down. If the power is being supplied through the earth wire, and he was at the junction, he would easily be able to perpetrate this hoax.
I really just want to discuss the science and not let this get sucked down the AGW rabbit hole.
Don't you think the specific sea ice data with respect to the location of the population of the Pacific Walruses is a better place to start that the blog of a scientist with an agenda talking generalities?
thank you for this... this sort of thing is exactly what we need to start discussing this scientifically. Past records. Very good. Good man.
You seem to have an agenda.
When I linked you to the movies of the tagged Walruses this year and 2012, that show that they did hit the land when the last of the ice disappeared, you didn't thank me, you just made a claim that the sea ice wasn't shrinking, and some straw man about acidification irritating the bodies of walruses.
Don't you think the specific sea ice data with respect to the location of the population of the Pacific Walruses is a better place to start that the blog of a scientist with an agenda talking generalities?
The funny thing: this event is provably NOT caused by ice loss.
Funny thing, the scientists who are tracking these Walruses at USGS say it IS
http://polarbearscience.com/20... [polarbearscience.com]
Do you think a blogger in the pay of the Heartland Institute is going to be a neutral source on the consequences of climate change?
That page has papers about this occurring in the seventies.
Only one this large in the entirety of last century. And but they have been common in 6 of the last 8 years.
so by this theory, the walruses should beach when the ice is at its lowest.
No, when the edge of the marginal ice near Alaska is beyond the continental shelf.
I can cite evidence to that effect if you like. So you don't even have correlation much less causation.
Please do.
But notice that in 2012, there Walruses, (at least those that were tagged) stayed on a marginal ice flow off the Coast of Alaska until the end of September..
That's the significant thing, Not entire northern hemisphere sea ice extent.
I am simply not one the koolaid drinkers and halfwits chanting along to your mantra. That does not make me wrong, evil, or ignorant.
In this case, you appear to be wrong and ignorant at least. Evil is in the eye of the beholder, but people like you aren't helping the planet. But I agree that we have a correlation and not causation. The causation is probably in the other direction.
I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic.
It's a paper from 1980 about a haulout event in 1978.
The highlighting is done by a person in the pay of the heartland institute, so it likely to be pushing a particularly unscientific agenda. But the paper exists in the scholarly literature. You can often check out the provenance of scholarly papers if you have an internet connection and access to google scholar.
Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses.
From the first line of your linked paper: In October-November 1978, several thousand living walruses came ashore in at least four localities on St. Lawrence Island where they had not been present before in this century.
There's a strong implication in that that it is not normal behavior.
Note also that the Walruses themselves were not normal: Nearly all of the dead were extremely lean, having less than half as much subcutaneous fat as healthy animals examined in previous years.
I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.
Okay, The scientists at USGS have said that this is due to the retreat of the sea ice, and you humble claim that this is wrong?
I'm not sure that you're using this word "humble" correctly.
It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF.
It appears to most people that it comes from the US Geological Survey. But the initial findings were by scientists working for NOAA's Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals.
That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization.
WWF fund and perform a lot of conservation science. But it was the USGS, which is a scientific organization that published the link to climate change.
I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.
Such as?
The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates.
I must have missed that press release. Do you have a link to it?
The author of the equation itself disavows it.
I didn't know that. Where did you read that?
That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.
It's not obvious how the Drake Equation, which calculates the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which radio-communication might be possible, could be made to yield "5 million species extinct this year." And that number seems about two orders of magnitude greater than the largest of estimates I've seen. The WWF speculates that we might be losing [10,000 per year](http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/), which is nearer three orders of magnitude lower than that number.
So I look forward to you pointing me to this press release that makes all their other work not to be taken seriously in your eyes.
Because I can't find it.
So part "B" I think this is... that the sea ice is reduced... seems questionable to me.
WTF?
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly. From here.
So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?
The ice disappeared North of Alaska, and they moved to land, it is understood. This happened at the very end of August. As you can see from the animation showing sea ice and the location of tagged walruses that I linked in the grandparent post.
As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument.
I'm just showing how you can get to (C) Because of global warming without going through (B) Sea Ice loss. Now the scientists have said that it is due to Sea Ice loss, so they're probably right. I only raise the point because your logic isn't sound on that point either.
Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about.
You seem to have misunderstood the point. I didn't suggest that the water might be harming or irritating the bodies of the walruses. I said that it was harming shellfish that are their food. And that in turn will affect where they go, because they have to go where there is food. And that in turn might cause them to choose land rather than ice.
Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion. ;)
Keeping an open mind in my case means believing that the scientists who study this stuff know about it. In your case it means believing that they've made a mistake in attribution that you can spot, but none of them have.
Which is more likely?
They didn't jump to that conclusion.
They merely explained what the current scientific thought is regarding the cause of the current haul out.
The fact that there have been mass walrus haulouts recorded as early as 1972, indicating fairly clearly that the more recent changes in arctic climate are not the cause of said haulouts?
That all haulouts have the same cause is a strange assumption. Do you have any basis for this?
No, they explained why they guess that. If they did science they'd look at past records and see if they beached themselves in past periods of low ice.
Okay. What makes you think they didn't?
In this case we have periods with less ice then today and they didn't beach themselves.
Big claim. The article doesn't have many of the specific details. Can you show me:
1) At what time the ice extent is believed to be sensitive to walrus haulouts on land in late September
2) How think the ice needs to be to support the Walruses
3) The source data that you have that shows that the ice of that thickness was further from Alaska in periods in which there were no land Haul-outs
We also have periods of more ice where they did.
Are you claiming that all land haul-outs have the same cause?
Do you have any scientific basis for this claim?
So... you see the problem.
Not yet. These guys study these Walruses. They're not just guessing from that news article.
If you look at the movement of the tagged Walruses in the very low ice year of 2012, you can see that a "marginal" sea ice pack remains off the shore of Alaska that they remain with until late September, even though the sea ice extent has retreated far north.
This year even the marginal ice left that area by the start of September, and the Walruses headed to Alaska.
And the first link is that "A" Walruses beach themselves is linked to "B" low sea ice... which fails on analysis.
You haven't convinced me that your analysis is sophisticated enough. I think you're using Northern Summer sea ice extent, where extent is where there is 15% or more sea ice. The Walrus tracking that these scientists have been doing shows that a Walrus can haul out on a block of ice that is more sparse than that.
So you can't even get to "C" which is "because global warming"... Because the link between low sea ice and walruses doesn't pan out.
I don't think sea ice is the only effect on the ecosystem of AGW up there.
Acidification might be causing them to alter where they can find food.
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the ocean was also depleting the walruses' food supply, making the waters too corrosive for the clams and other shellfish that are their staple.
They have beached themselves with more ice and not beached themselves with less ice. So "less ice" = "beaching" fails.
Okay. Where is your Walrus- sufficient sea ice data?
I'd like to check it because it looks a lot like you're just fucking assuming that it is the same as the sea ice extent, and it looks like you're assuming that the whole hemisphere's extent is a good proxy for the near Alaska sea ice.
Do the fucking science and stop assuming things.
Quite
Also, you should follow the money.
Heartland Institute leak: Susan Crockford of University of Victoria recruited to help think tank undermine IPCC
Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed
Crockford has a conflict of interest, because she is paid to find that things aren't to do with climate change.
The WWF made it about climate, but it is NOT.
The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.
Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.
Unlike seals, walrus cannot swim indefinitely and must rest. They use their tusks to "haul out," or pull themselves onto ice or rocks.
As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea, the body of water north of the Bering Strait.
In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom.
What have I missed?
Why would autumn haulout events coincide with minimum summer sea ice extent?
This year's sea ice north of Alaska was much further north than last year
If the scientists studying this haulout say that it's north of the continental shelf, and this caused the haulout on land, you're going to need some pretty good evidence that it is not north of the continental shelf.
Looking at overall minimum extents isn't going to cut the mustard.
Also, don't get your science from science-denial industry funded websites. They're full of misinformation.
You're likely to get biased science if you go to a paid global warming denial website rather than a pro-scientific one.
The attempts to claim that the past events (and the only one of a similar size was in 1979) must have had the same cause as the current one doesn't follow.
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
They do describe the mechanism that links the retreat of the sea ice to walrus haulouts on land:
So that's the link.
I mean if everyone who was worried about AGW reduced and sequestored carbon, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
There is a limit to current sequestration technologies. You can't keep planting trees, because you run out of space.
To achieve the 80-90% reductions required to halt the growth of atmospheric CO2, in the medium term, you need to clean the grid, and use electricity for transportation.
And the latter does very little without the former.
An individual cannot clean fossil fuel power generation off the grid. Government has to be involved.
As far as "displaced tens of millions of people per year" goes, this includes Syrian refugees who were forced off of their farms due to climate-change induced drought; triggering the Syrian civil war.
I think you might be mistaken about that.
The 2014 report doesn't mention Syria at all.
I've been bothered by this claim each time I see it. If you're willing to move big rocks for nothing but beer, are you any better than a slave?
This is not the case with Egyptian Artisans. They were working for a salary or as part of their tax.
But to answer the question, yes, willing voluntary work is better than being a slave.
This study doesn't show a thinning of the sea ice, but of the ice sheet. It would be tricky to measure the thickness of sea ice using gravity variations, because in only barely floats.
The reason the deniers are wrong about sea ice extent is because they're choosing to only look at the southern hemisphere, where there is nearly no sea ice. The global trend in sea ice is downwards. I think that that does count as cherry picking.
Al Gore isn't sequestering anything.
No, he's buying offsets from companies that are sequestering.
He's running a scam to increase his wealth.
He made a lot of money from when he was working for Apple. And the movie was a bit of a blockbuster. He has made some savvy investments in green companies too, but he's also donated millions to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.
Reading between the lines, you have two points to make. One that you could argue that there isn't global warming while the ice sheets are melting so long as there is a large cooling elsewhere. And two that you don't find that this is a very compelling argument because there isn't such a cooling.
And sure. Ice sheet mass loss is indicative of regional warming, not global warming. 500 cubic kilometres represents about 46 trillion kilowatt hours. Incidentally, at current average Australian electricity prices, that would cost about the same as the GDP of the entire country for about 6.8 years.
It also represents about 0.01 W/m^2 for one year for the entire surface of the earth, or about 1-2% of the total energy imbalance. Possible to hide in other places, in principle, but you'd probably notice. And continued sea level rise is a bit of a cincher.
Lost it when you said you believe Gore is "carbon neutral."
Thanks for reading the whole thing, but that wasn't the most important point. I hope you also noted how we know that it is the enhanced greenhouse effect and not the sun that is causing the current warming. Perhaps you even noticed that some of your language is the same as that developed by PR groups with a counter-scientific agenda to market.
Just because one buys carbon credits doesn't mean that all the carbon one released magically goes away!
No, it doesn't go away. But if you sequester the same amount of CO2 that you emit, then the net effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is zero.
Hahahahaha. You are seriously a dumbass to swallow that shit.
...