AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface.
You keep writing this, but it's still wrong (in several ways):
The Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) is a theoretical expectation of both natural and anthropogenic warming scenarios so it's not a key signature of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's also an expected result of natural global warming (for example from an increase in solar radiance).
Both the Satellite and balloon data both show actually do show warming in the TLT.
One satellite set (UAH) shows slower warming than the balloons and other satellite sets, your argument is based on assuming the outlier is the accurate data set. This runs contrary to all logic and any rational application of the scientific method.
There are identified (and uncorrected) errors in the UAH data set that biases towards colder temperatures.
The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
Only in a single data set with a known cold bias.
Furthermore, the computer simulations estimate the ECS and TCS to be of the order of 4-7 C / doubling of CO2.
This is the Science, and according to the Scientific Method the AGW theory is falsified.
Unfortunately (for you), the scientific method actually doesn't work like that. Otherwise, everyone in my high school science classes would have disproved gravity because no one got a measurement that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2. You need to show a real (and critical) divergence from the predictions of the theory to falsify it. The bungled results of two bumbling scientists who refuse to correct previously identified errors in their methodology doesn't cut it, especially when their results contradict a minor theoretical side effect that's not even specific to the theory in question.
The present warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age. It started a century before humans started emitting significant quantities of CO2. Now, please consider what you would expect to see when solar magnetic activity started increasing after the Maunder and Dalton minimums - would you expect to see warming starting a century and a half ago? do you see warming? yes you do. Svensmark and Shaviv explain the mechanism and this fits observations.
Yet, we measure the solar activity and it has not only not been for the last 25 years, it's been slightly decreasing, and yet warming continues. If your theory is that the sun did it, that theory is not consistent with the evidence. It is a worse fit in every way that anthropogenic climate change.
Also, Pudzer's being more than a little dishonest. If $3 an hour is the difference between human or robot service now and he's willing to swich and the cost of automation is decreasing, then one of two things must be true either he's lying about these facts, or "Suzie" is going to end up without of a job regardless of whether we raise the minimum wage. So increasing the minimum wage will have pretty much no effect (the research indicates that raising the minimum wage tends to have a mildly positive effect on employment), or not increasing the minimum wage would, at best, keep Suzie working in a terrible job for a couple of additional years until she's replace by a slightly cheaper robot.
Frankly, I would place my bet on Pudzer being entirely full of shit. This isn't about jobs at all, it's about Pudzer's company not having to pay it's employees more money. It seems to me, that this putz would say anything at all to try and make it so they don't have to pay them a single penny more and he can collect a multi-million dollar bonus for keeping costs down.
We all know that. But if the idiotic left is going to continue to use that number, we are going to throw it back in their faces during arguments. Use it when it is advantageous, use the other numbers when it is advantageous.
Those are the words of a dishonest jackass who only cares about winning arguments. Is that really the person you want to be?
As to trend lines, I showed you two well respected papers that contradicted that statement. Take it back or I take your credibility. Choose.
The problem, is of course, that you did no such thing. One of the papers you referenced was irrelevant and the other agreed with me. I even quoted from second paper to show where it explicitly disagrees with what you've written and agreed with my correction of your error.
Everything else you've written just screams "Crazy person here". So, good luck with that.
No, but no-one likes to talk about it because it isn't as Sci-fi/George Jetson as Robot cars. I think robot transport is inevitable. We already have automated trains, elevators, escalators etc, but whether this automation will extend to personal transport, ie the thing that people are most emotionally attached to because of the feeling of freedom it gives, I think is another argument altogether.
You've got some good points there, but I think there are a lot of people who either aren't that emotionally attached to the feeling of freedom they get from a vehicle, or would prefer the convenience of an autonomous vehicle. My guess is that autonomous vehicles will eventually win out, partly based on a small observation on manual versus automatic transmissions, namely that only about 4% of cars sold in 2013 had a manual transmission (down from almost 30% in the 1980s). True, the change from manual to automatic is a smaller change, but it is something to consider.
Also, I suspect most of the first few generations of autonomous vehicles will have a steering wheel and pedals and the driver will be able to switch the autonomous mode on or off. I expect it'll probably be a while before there are cars that are not designed to be driven manually.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
Sorry, no. The long term trend line over the past 2000 years is generally down until you hit the recent warming. You might be talking about the "little ice age" but the recovery from that ended before the recent warming.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
Some of the observed populations are increasing and some are decreasing. The populations that are increasing are recovery from hunting during the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, the populations that would be worst hit by warming are also the ones we have the least information about, because they are the furthest north. The primary conservation concerns for polar bears are habitat loss and reduce access to their primary prey due to climate change.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
Actually, I was thinking of crops in particular. The majority of the world's food supply comes from a handful of species adapted to our current temperature ranges, increase the temperature too much and their yields decline. For example, warmer temperatures are cause grain seeds to mature faster but at a smaller size reducing the yields of those crops and that's before we consider other climate change factors like increased flooding or increased droughts.
Yes, the oceans rose after the land glaciers melted at the end of the last glacial period.
You can see from that and this:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/in... That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time. The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years. And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases. So... my point is sustained.
The second link says:
While sea levels have varied by over 120m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the
19th century and early 20th century, when geolog-ical and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sea-level rise.
That's almost exactly what I quoted from the NOAA, so no, you were wrong.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations.
Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...
Scientists, meteorologists, and anyone who cares to look at historical averages...
I know I know... Polar bears... To which I can only respond with a mixture of yawns and skepticism that the polar bears really can't handle things being slightly warmer given that they have in the past, they do just fine in the summer when it is dramatically warmer, and no one has yet found any polar bears that have suffered from heat exhaustion in their native habitat. So I'm calling bullshit on that score.
It's the inability to catch an eat food in the winter which threatens polar bear populations. A lack of Arctic sea ice makes it more difficult for them to hunt and feed in winter. The populations closest to humans are the most likely to adapt to global warming because they are less reliant on sea ice.
As to AGW issues in general... all things considered, I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.
In the long run, maybe, if we don't heat things up too far and too fast. We could run into severe problems if we exceed the maximum optimum temperature for the vegetation we currently have (which is around 4 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature). There a significant risk that in the business as usual scenario we may exceed that value, and reach up to almost double that level of warming. Without a massive infusion of new, genetically engineered crops, we'd be facing severely degraded crop yields in most of the world's primary agricultural lands. Either way, that would likely lead to large increases in the cost of food.
Considering that one the primary driving forces of instability in the "Arab spring" is the cost of food, we could expect to see a lot more political instability in a warming world.
Here someone might say "but the equator will get hotter too!"... except according to GW theory it won't actually. The poles will heat up a bit but the equator shouldn't move much.
That's pretty much correct, except the equator will still warm a slower rate than the temperate regions and the poles will warm at a faster rate than the temperature regions.
Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well. The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years. The rate of rise doesn't appear to have changed remarkably.
Actually, I think you're wrong here. The NOAA, for instances, says that ocean levels were pretty stable until the start of the 20th century.
And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around.
The sea level rise doesn't happen quickly, but the effects will mostly be seen during natural disasters when previously safe areas are flooded for the first time, and between natural disasters when additional taxes must be levied to protect people from the sea rise by building barriers to protect low lying areas, and finally when those protection are catastrophically breached.
I'm not seeing any of the AGW evangelists buying inland property and selling their beach houses. So I take all the doom and gloom out of such people as demonstrably insincere.
How would you know? It's only news if they buy something that seems hypocritical (or can be spun that way by Rupert Murdoch's media holdings).
Well I haven't seen that argument being made anywhere.
There actually are a couple of people commenting here that were making exactly that argument, that driving is far too complicated to be successfully automated.
1. There is a lot more to driving than safety (eg we accept certain risks in the name of freedom of choice, and quality of life)
Safety is, however, one of the primary concerns with transportation technology.
2. If safety is your main driver, how about starting with mandatory seatbelt laws? Mandatory helmets would also help, but see point 1 above.
It looks like all 50 states have some form of mandatory seatbelt legislation (although it does look like a lot of the states have mediocre seat belt laws). I don't know what the net effect of mandatory helmets for cars would be, but after a bit research several different people suggested that the helmet does not provide much additional protection if the seatbelt is used and the car has air bags. Several also suggested that the helmet would make some of the more types of car occupant injuries worse, for example, the added weight of the helmet would make whiplash and non-impact brain injuries worse.
3. The biggest issue in large cities is not safety but congestion. A robot car does nothing to solve this (in fact it could make it worse as public transport will now have less efficient competition.
If you love the technology, then why not robot buses and trains?
On the one hand, automated cars should reduce the number of accidents and that should reduce congestion problems (of course, the convenience may induce additional congestion), on the other hand automated buses and trains seem like an obvious application of the autonomous vehicle technology, I don't think anyone is specifically excluding them.
The thing you're missing is that to get those "a la carte" channels, a lot of those companies are pulling a "and you need to have xyz" service from us too! Internet is the popular one. So, that $25 is now $90 and those 3 or 5 channels you want? Well you might not be able to get them separately, so you might have to buy them in bundle packs. Which could cost you $9-25 per bundle, you're looking at $150+ now...
So... you're saying prices are going to go down? Because seriously, $150 sounds like less than what you have paid to get some individual channels last year, and you wouldn't have been getting internet service included in that price...
I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem here is. Why does the pricing need to be regulated?
Because Canadians told them to and , according to one poll last year, 64% of Canadians explicitly support the pick'n'pay policy and 25% are undecided, and that only leaves 11% against it.
What's strange is how many so called "nerds" leave their critical thinking at the door as soon as "cool new technology!" gets published.
Funny, that was exactly what I was just saying... It seems to me that not a few people are leaving the thinking part out.
Or do you own a Segway too?
Interestingly, I think autonomous vehicles actually have the potential to live up to the hype around the original Segway announcement. I'm sure there will be huge problems with autonomous vehicles and many set backs, but I think they will ultimately prevail. And frankly, it seems to me that the people who think autonomous vehicles are literally an impossible technology, lack both vision and imagination. They should hand in their Slashdot ids and go start a subreddit or something, and maybe they'll improve the quality of both sites...
Your whole comment just screams "ad hominem" because it focuses on one particular source cited when the writer is the head of a different organization that has an excellent record at defending the rights of students and faculty from campus autocrats.
Only if you're incompetent and have reading comprehension problems. He pointed an issue with their source, and then he agreed with them anyway. That's the opposite of an ad hominem.
Hey folks, don't believe it because damn dirty right wingers are involved, even if they are arguing that college campuses are trampling the rights of political minorities.
You may be projecting your combative political views on others.
Personally, I do mistrust the list because it and the source articles on the FIRE web site for some of the events are loaded with prejudicial language and I feel they trying to tell me what I should think about the event they reference, rather than tell me about the events themselves. I don't like people trying to tell me what I should think especially when they may be hiding relevant details of the events from me. Maybe they're actually good people, I don't know, but I don't care for the way they've tried to (in my opinion) dishonesty shape my opinions.
If you think Watts Up With That is a reliable source, that might be the source of your misunderstanding of, well, everything related to climate science.
There's nothing "healthy" about your "skepticism". It is entirely one-sided and engineered to insulate your from inconvenient truths.
Like when the CRU at UEA was caught manipulating the numbers (and then conveniently "lost" them) ? Those facts?
I would refute your claims, except that you left out all specifics other than the target you wish you discredit with vague allegations, however, assuming you're referring to "climategate", eight separate investigations found that the claims you are repeating were invented bullshit based on quote-mining thousands of emails.
or the fact that the Polar Cap has more ice now than it should given Global Warming? (should be gone according to Al Gore!) Those facts?
More facts that aren't. Arctic ice losses are consistently out-pacing actual predictions, so there is less sea ice in the Arctic than the IPCC predicted there would be. Also, Al Gore (who is not a scientist) actually said that one study predicted ice could be gone in less than 22 years, and a second study by a U.S Navy researcher warned it could happen in as little as seven years.
Yea, a link to a conservative blog post written three years ago about a Fox News article about a Nature Climate Change article, is certainly evidence of something... It took me a while to find it, but the actual commentary article says that runs that they did of the CMIP5 models over-estimated warming from 1993 to 2012 according to the HadCRUT4 temperature data. So, it's 97.4% of the predictions from a single set of models as run by three researchers that are overestimating observed warming, and they then point out a number of reasons why that might be the case.
I feel I should warn you that AM appears to be entirely immune to logic, facts and reason. This is especially true when it comes to anything libertarian in nature, and he is an ardent opposer of climate change because it challenges his deeply held libertarian beliefs that the free market is perfect and will correct every problem.
I am sure he will either ignore you, or invent another spurious reason why he needs to ignore the the facts.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
The problem is Google and Apple are subject to the 35% rate and there is little they can do about it, other than keeping their profits off-shore. Only lowering the rate to 20% (or maybe 15%, the exact amount is debatable) will motivate them to bring it back here.
Actually, it won't. Canada's corporate tax rate is 15% and it has had no significant effect. Lower the rate to 0% and maybe they will be motivated to bring it back. It's a simple fact that the money goes where it will be taxed the least, end of story. They pay people to make sure their tax rates as low as legally allowed, and the last time I checked, there were already 0% corporate tax jurisdictions, so the only way to guarantee they bring the money back is to offer a negative tax rate.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Hadrian's Wall. Two and a half centuries of use suggests it was working pretty well.
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm because the building of Hadrian's wall marks the beginning of the end of the Roman empire. It was a spiritual turning point for the Romans. When they built the wall they admitted that they could not conquer the world and that they were no longer strong enough to dominate technologically inferior opponents. So they built a wall across an island because they no longer had the will nor the capacity to conquer the rest of the island. It was an admission of what they could no longer do, and it marks the end of the expansion of the empire and the beginning of the fall.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
That's just not true. People are uniformly better off today than they were 35 years ago. What has happened is that tax burdens have shifted somewhat. And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20% [taxfoundation.org].
I suppose that depends on whether maintaining the society that allows the top 20% to earn their massive incomes should count as a benefit. Studies like this (especially from organizations called "The Tax Foundation" or something similar) are generally run with the intention of showing how the rich are taxed way too much for the benefit of "those lazy poor people" while ignoring the fact that the very same people they spit on the ones who generate all of the wealth that the rich are accumulating. The change that's being going on since the 70s is that corporations have been systematically underpaying their employees for the work they do and transferring that wealth to the owners. I think that in general, Americans overvalue ownership and undervalue productive work and I suspect it's the inevitable end result of the worship of capitalism. It's a pretty good system, but y'all need to stop dry-humping it's leg.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).
I used to believe the same thing, but apparently it's not as simple as that. For instance, according to the department of labour it's actually myth that increases to the minimum wage cause unemployment. They cite a letter signed by 600 economists (including 7 Nobel Prize winners) that claims that recent research shows that raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to job losses and furthermore it actually tends to reduce unemployment by mildly stimulating the economy.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I think, when it comes down to it, if you're running for election for a government job, you are either not a libertarian, or you stop being one shortly after you win the election.
It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.
Too bad it wasn't the MRA's complaining about how they were offended that started it right? It was the rabid feminists, and the rabid feminists in the press that did.
Oh no. Someone on the internet said something you didn't like. That's clearly a good reason to spend years obsessing over that.
Ah so you've go the inside track as to why they fired him? That should be easy for you to provide sources. Oh and a company wouldn't fire someone over something like that? Or did you forget that most places in the US it's "at will employment." Meaning being fired for something that trivial and even less trivial happens a lot more then you'd think.
I don't know anything about his particulars, but his infraction is minor enough that they could have handled it differently, but they clearly didn't want to. It's practically guaranteed that they had other reasons for wanting him gone, and this was the last straw.
Oh, but no mention on the no-platform stuff? Or student unions going after students for refusing to follow the group think? Or the press in general spouting off at the hip with the same garbage. Like why air conditioning is sexist, or why if you don't vote for hillary you're a misogynist. Seems to me, you're right on the cusp of figuring out that there's a serious problem with a segment of the left, but you're hoping it'll go away before you have to call it out for being batshit insane.
There are "batshit insane" people in just about every group, but there are a hell of a lot of them on the right, at the moment. The problem is your examples of "batshit insane" are more dull, boring and petty than "insane", they're like the "Extreme" rice cakes of grievances. Call it what you want but it's still dry, stale and tasteless.
Slashdot Mirror
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface.
You keep writing this, but it's still wrong (in several ways):
The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
Only in a single data set with a known cold bias.
Furthermore, the computer simulations estimate the ECS and TCS to be of the order of 4-7 C / doubling of CO2.
Actually the IPCC says between 1.5 and 4.5.
This is the Science, and according to the Scientific Method the AGW theory is falsified.
Unfortunately (for you), the scientific method actually doesn't work like that. Otherwise, everyone in my high school science classes would have disproved gravity because no one got a measurement that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2. You need to show a real (and critical) divergence from the predictions of the theory to falsify it. The bungled results of two bumbling scientists who refuse to correct previously identified errors in their methodology doesn't cut it, especially when their results contradict a minor theoretical side effect that's not even specific to the theory in question.
The present warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age. It started a century before humans started emitting significant quantities of CO2. Now, please consider what you would expect to see when solar magnetic activity started increasing after the Maunder and Dalton minimums - would you expect to see warming starting a century and a half ago? do you see warming? yes you do. Svensmark and Shaviv explain the mechanism and this fits observations.
Yet, we measure the solar activity and it has not only not been for the last 25 years, it's been slightly decreasing, and yet warming continues. If your theory is that the sun did it, that theory is not consistent with the evidence. It is a worse fit in every way that anthropogenic climate change.
Here's a pro tip: Read the whole comment before you click on the "Reply to This" link and prove you're an idiot.
In case you still don't get it: He's not suggestion we do that, he 's calculating the percentage of total income a $500 basic income would represent.
Maybe he plans to become Burger-G?
Also, Pudzer's being more than a little dishonest. If $3 an hour is the difference between human or robot service now and he's willing to swich and the cost of automation is decreasing, then one of two things must be true either he's lying about these facts, or "Suzie" is going to end up without of a job regardless of whether we raise the minimum wage. So increasing the minimum wage will have pretty much no effect (the research indicates that raising the minimum wage tends to have a mildly positive effect on employment), or not increasing the minimum wage would, at best, keep Suzie working in a terrible job for a couple of additional years until she's replace by a slightly cheaper robot.
Frankly, I would place my bet on Pudzer being entirely full of shit. This isn't about jobs at all, it's about Pudzer's company not having to pay it's employees more money. It seems to me, that this putz would say anything at all to try and make it so they don't have to pay them a single penny more and he can collect a multi-million dollar bonus for keeping costs down.
We all know that. But if the idiotic left is going to continue to use that number, we are going to throw it back in their faces during arguments. Use it when it is advantageous, use the other numbers when it is advantageous.
Those are the words of a dishonest jackass who only cares about winning arguments. Is that really the person you want to be?
I'm not sure if that would have much effect. There's a lot of crazies who post while logged in too...
You means, it's what differentiates /.?
As to trend lines, I showed you two well respected papers that contradicted that statement. Take it back or I take your credibility. Choose.
The problem, is of course, that you did no such thing. One of the papers you referenced was irrelevant and the other agreed with me. I even quoted from second paper to show where it explicitly disagrees with what you've written and agreed with my correction of your error.
Everything else you've written just screams "Crazy person here". So, good luck with that.
No, but no-one likes to talk about it because it isn't as Sci-fi/George Jetson as Robot cars. I think robot transport is inevitable. We already have automated trains, elevators, escalators etc, but whether this automation will extend to personal transport, ie the thing that people are most emotionally attached to because of the feeling of freedom it gives, I think is another argument altogether.
You've got some good points there, but I think there are a lot of people who either aren't that emotionally attached to the feeling of freedom they get from a vehicle, or would prefer the convenience of an autonomous vehicle. My guess is that autonomous vehicles will eventually win out, partly based on a small observation on manual versus automatic transmissions, namely that only about 4% of cars sold in 2013 had a manual transmission (down from almost 30% in the 1980s). True, the change from manual to automatic is a smaller change, but it is something to consider.
Also, I suspect most of the first few generations of autonomous vehicles will have a steering wheel and pedals and the driver will be able to switch the autonomous mode on or off. I expect it'll probably be a while before there are cars that are not designed to be driven manually.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
Sorry, no. The long term trend line over the past 2000 years is generally down until you hit the recent warming. You might be talking about the "little ice age" but the recovery from that ended before the recent warming.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
Some of the observed populations are increasing and some are decreasing. The populations that are increasing are recovery from hunting during the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, the populations that would be worst hit by warming are also the ones we have the least information about, because they are the furthest north. The primary conservation concerns for polar bears are habitat loss and reduce access to their primary prey due to climate change.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
Actually, I was thinking of crops in particular. The majority of the world's food supply comes from a handful of species adapted to our current temperature ranges, increase the temperature too much and their yields decline. For example, warmer temperatures are cause grain seeds to mature faster but at a smaller size reducing the yields of those crops and that's before we consider other climate change factors like increased flooding or increased droughts.
As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period. http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...
Yes, the oceans rose after the land glaciers melted at the end of the last glacial period.
You can see from that and this: http://academics.eckerd.edu/in... That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time. The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years. And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases. So... my point is sustained.
The second link says:
That's almost exactly what I quoted from the NOAA, so no, you were wrong.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations.
Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...
Scientists, meteorologists, and anyone who cares to look at historical averages...
I know I know... Polar bears... To which I can only respond with a mixture of yawns and skepticism that the polar bears really can't handle things being slightly warmer given that they have in the past, they do just fine in the summer when it is dramatically warmer, and no one has yet found any polar bears that have suffered from heat exhaustion in their native habitat. So I'm calling bullshit on that score.
It's the inability to catch an eat food in the winter which threatens polar bear populations. A lack of Arctic sea ice makes it more difficult for them to hunt and feed in winter. The populations closest to humans are the most likely to adapt to global warming because they are less reliant on sea ice.
As to AGW issues in general... all things considered, I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.
In the long run, maybe, if we don't heat things up too far and too fast. We could run into severe problems if we exceed the maximum optimum temperature for the vegetation we currently have (which is around 4 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature). There a significant risk that in the business as usual scenario we may exceed that value, and reach up to almost double that level of warming. Without a massive infusion of new, genetically engineered crops, we'd be facing severely degraded crop yields in most of the world's primary agricultural lands. Either way, that would likely lead to large increases in the cost of food.
Considering that one the primary driving forces of instability in the "Arab spring" is the cost of food, we could expect to see a lot more political instability in a warming world.
Here someone might say "but the equator will get hotter too!"... except according to GW theory it won't actually. The poles will heat up a bit but the equator shouldn't move much.
That's pretty much correct, except the equator will still warm a slower rate than the temperate regions and the poles will warm at a faster rate than the temperature regions.
Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well. The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years. The rate of rise doesn't appear to have changed remarkably.
Actually, I think you're wrong here. The NOAA, for instances, says that ocean levels were pretty stable until the start of the 20th century.
And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around.
The sea level rise doesn't happen quickly, but the effects will mostly be seen during natural disasters when previously safe areas are flooded for the first time, and between natural disasters when additional taxes must be levied to protect people from the sea rise by building barriers to protect low lying areas, and finally when those protection are catastrophically breached.
I'm not seeing any of the AGW evangelists buying inland property and selling their beach houses. So I take all the doom and gloom out of such people as demonstrably insincere.
How would you know? It's only news if they buy something that seems hypocritical (or can be spun that way by Rupert Murdoch's media holdings).
Well I haven't seen that argument being made anywhere.
There actually are a couple of people commenting here that were making exactly that argument, that driving is far too complicated to be successfully automated.
1. There is a lot more to driving than safety (eg we accept certain risks in the name of freedom of choice, and quality of life)
Safety is, however, one of the primary concerns with transportation technology.
2. If safety is your main driver, how about starting with mandatory seatbelt laws? Mandatory helmets would also help, but see point 1 above.
It looks like all 50 states have some form of mandatory seatbelt legislation (although it does look like a lot of the states have mediocre seat belt laws). I don't know what the net effect of mandatory helmets for cars would be, but after a bit research several different people suggested that the helmet does not provide much additional protection if the seatbelt is used and the car has air bags. Several also suggested that the helmet would make some of the more types of car occupant injuries worse, for example, the added weight of the helmet would make whiplash and non-impact brain injuries worse.
3. The biggest issue in large cities is not safety but congestion. A robot car does nothing to solve this (in fact it could make it worse as public transport will now have less efficient competition. If you love the technology, then why not robot buses and trains?
On the one hand, automated cars should reduce the number of accidents and that should reduce congestion problems (of course, the convenience may induce additional congestion), on the other hand automated buses and trains seem like an obvious application of the autonomous vehicle technology, I don't think anyone is specifically excluding them.
The thing you're missing is that to get those "a la carte" channels, a lot of those companies are pulling a "and you need to have xyz" service from us too! Internet is the popular one. So, that $25 is now $90 and those 3 or 5 channels you want? Well you might not be able to get them separately, so you might have to buy them in bundle packs. Which could cost you $9-25 per bundle, you're looking at $150+ now...
So... you're saying prices are going to go down? Because seriously, $150 sounds like less than what you have paid to get some individual channels last year, and you wouldn't have been getting internet service included in that price...
I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem here is. Why does the pricing need to be regulated?
Because Canadians told them to and , according to one poll last year, 64% of Canadians explicitly support the pick'n'pay policy and 25% are undecided, and that only leaves 11% against it.
What's strange is how many so called "nerds" leave their critical thinking at the door as soon as "cool new technology!" gets published.
Funny, that was exactly what I was just saying... It seems to me that not a few people are leaving the thinking part out.
Or do you own a Segway too?
Interestingly, I think autonomous vehicles actually have the potential to live up to the hype around the original Segway announcement. I'm sure there will be huge problems with autonomous vehicles and many set backs, but I think they will ultimately prevail. And frankly, it seems to me that the people who think autonomous vehicles are literally an impossible technology, lack both vision and imagination. They should hand in their Slashdot ids and go start a subreddit or something, and maybe they'll improve the quality of both sites...
For some reason, your comment (and many others) reminded me of Caveman Science Fiction. It's strange how many Luddites there are on Slashdot...
Your whole comment just screams "ad hominem" because it focuses on one particular source cited when the writer is the head of a different organization that has an excellent record at defending the rights of students and faculty from campus autocrats.
Only if you're incompetent and have reading comprehension problems. He pointed an issue with their source, and then he agreed with them anyway. That's the opposite of an ad hominem.
Hey folks, don't believe it because damn dirty right wingers are involved, even if they are arguing that college campuses are trampling the rights of political minorities.
You may be projecting your combative political views on others.
Personally, I do mistrust the list because it and the source articles on the FIRE web site for some of the events are loaded with prejudicial language and I feel they trying to tell me what I should think about the event they reference, rather than tell me about the events themselves. I don't like people trying to tell me what I should think especially when they may be hiding relevant details of the events from me. Maybe they're actually good people, I don't know, but I don't care for the way they've tried to (in my opinion) dishonesty shape my opinions.
If you think Watts Up With That is a reliable source, that might be the source of your misunderstanding of, well, everything related to climate science.
"Ignore the facts" meaning "healthy skepticism".
There's nothing "healthy" about your "skepticism". It is entirely one-sided and engineered to insulate your from inconvenient truths.
Like when the CRU at UEA was caught manipulating the numbers (and then conveniently "lost" them) ? Those facts?
I would refute your claims, except that you left out all specifics other than the target you wish you discredit with vague allegations, however, assuming you're referring to "climategate", eight separate investigations found that the claims you are repeating were invented bullshit based on quote-mining thousands of emails.
or the fact that the Polar Cap has more ice now than it should given Global Warming? (should be gone according to Al Gore!) Those facts?
More facts that aren't. Arctic ice losses are consistently out-pacing actual predictions, so there is less sea ice in the Arctic than the IPCC predicted there would be. Also, Al Gore (who is not a scientist) actually said that one study predicted ice could be gone in less than 22 years, and a second study by a U.S Navy researcher warned it could happen in as little as seven years.
Or the "starving polar bear" facts ?
What about starving polar bears?
Or any of the other 97.4% of the predictions gone wrong. Those facts?
http://www.westernjournalism.c...
Yea, a link to a conservative blog post written three years ago about a Fox News article about a Nature Climate Change article, is certainly evidence of something... It took me a while to find it, but the actual commentary article says that runs that they did of the CMIP5 models over-estimated warming from 1993 to 2012 according to the HadCRUT4 temperature data. So, it's 97.4% of the predictions from a single set of models as run by three researchers that are overestimating observed warming, and they then point out a number of reasons why that might be the case.
I feel I should warn you that AM appears to be entirely immune to logic, facts and reason. This is especially true when it comes to anything libertarian in nature, and he is an ardent opposer of climate change because it challenges his deeply held libertarian beliefs that the free market is perfect and will correct every problem.
I am sure he will either ignore you, or invent another spurious reason why he needs to ignore the the facts.
The problem is Google and Apple are subject to the 35% rate and there is little they can do about it, other than keeping their profits off-shore. Only lowering the rate to 20% (or maybe 15%, the exact amount is debatable) will motivate them to bring it back here.
Actually, it won't. Canada's corporate tax rate is 15% and it has had no significant effect. Lower the rate to 0% and maybe they will be motivated to bring it back. It's a simple fact that the money goes where it will be taxed the least, end of story. They pay people to make sure their tax rates as low as legally allowed, and the last time I checked, there were already 0% corporate tax jurisdictions, so the only way to guarantee they bring the money back is to offer a negative tax rate.
Hadrian's Wall. Two and a half centuries of use suggests it was working pretty well.
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm because the building of Hadrian's wall marks the beginning of the end of the Roman empire. It was a spiritual turning point for the Romans. When they built the wall they admitted that they could not conquer the world and that they were no longer strong enough to dominate technologically inferior opponents. So they built a wall across an island because they no longer had the will nor the capacity to conquer the rest of the island. It was an admission of what they could no longer do, and it marks the end of the expansion of the empire and the beginning of the fall.
That's just not true. People are uniformly better off today than they were 35 years ago. What has happened is that tax burdens have shifted somewhat. And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20% [taxfoundation.org].
I suppose that depends on whether maintaining the society that allows the top 20% to earn their massive incomes should count as a benefit. Studies like this (especially from organizations called "The Tax Foundation" or something similar) are generally run with the intention of showing how the rich are taxed way too much for the benefit of "those lazy poor people" while ignoring the fact that the very same people they spit on the ones who generate all of the wealth that the rich are accumulating. The change that's being going on since the 70s is that corporations have been systematically underpaying their employees for the work they do and transferring that wealth to the owners. I think that in general, Americans overvalue ownership and undervalue productive work and I suspect it's the inevitable end result of the worship of capitalism. It's a pretty good system, but y'all need to stop dry-humping it's leg.
From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).
I used to believe the same thing, but apparently it's not as simple as that. For instance, according to the department of labour it's actually myth that increases to the minimum wage cause unemployment. They cite a letter signed by 600 economists (including 7 Nobel Prize winners) that claims that recent research shows that raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to job losses and furthermore it actually tends to reduce unemployment by mildly stimulating the economy.
I think, when it comes down to it, if you're running for election for a government job, you are either not a libertarian, or you stop being one shortly after you win the election.
It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.
Too bad it wasn't the MRA's complaining about how they were offended that started it right? It was the rabid feminists, and the rabid feminists in the press that did.
Oh no. Someone on the internet said something you didn't like. That's clearly a good reason to spend years obsessing over that.
Ah so you've go the inside track as to why they fired him? That should be easy for you to provide sources. Oh and a company wouldn't fire someone over something like that? Or did you forget that most places in the US it's "at will employment." Meaning being fired for something that trivial and even less trivial happens a lot more then you'd think.
I don't know anything about his particulars, but his infraction is minor enough that they could have handled it differently, but they clearly didn't want to. It's practically guaranteed that they had other reasons for wanting him gone, and this was the last straw.
Oh, but no mention on the no-platform stuff? Or student unions going after students for refusing to follow the group think? Or the press in general spouting off at the hip with the same garbage. Like why air conditioning is sexist, or why if you don't vote for hillary you're a misogynist. Seems to me, you're right on the cusp of figuring out that there's a serious problem with a segment of the left, but you're hoping it'll go away before you have to call it out for being batshit insane.
There are "batshit insane" people in just about every group, but there are a hell of a lot of them on the right, at the moment. The problem is your examples of "batshit insane" are more dull, boring and petty than "insane", they're like the "Extreme" rice cakes of grievances. Call it what you want but it's still dry, stale and tasteless.