It isn't a trade off. The added logistics costs are already far below what this stupid project has already cost.
And indifferent to that, the F35 is objectively inferior to 12 different specialized planes. So you're not saving money and your doing a less effective job.
The size doesn't make them expensive. Take a cargo ship and give it a flat top. That is what we did in WW2. It works fine. YES YES... you couldn't make the literal same fucking ship because the planes are different. But in concept you could generally the same thing.
What makes warships expensive is pretty much everything but size and the size of the deck. So just start with the requirement that you have a reasonable deck size and then you won't have these problems.
Your link equated the concentrations of CO2 with that of a poison.
That stupid.
First, lets go over the only spectrum that CO2 even absorbs... now overlay that with the spectrums of other compounds in the atmosphere like water vapor and you're left with a tiny sliver of UNIQUE spectrum that it blocks.
The painted window analogy is also stupid because CO2 isn't analogous to opaque paint. Its if you like analogous to basically transparent paint. And a thin layer of it at that.
The climate models that that started this whole thing were based on studies of Venus... which is dominated by CO2.
And another point, Venus actually isn't made hot because of CO2. Its made hot instead because it is closer to the sun and its atmosphere is a lot denser. Compare the temperature of venus to the temperature of earth AT one atmpsohere which is earth sea level and you'll find that venus's temps aren't that much higher than the earth's. The issue is that you can keep going down in Venus's atmosphere and it gets hotter as you do.
The same thing can be found on every planet with an atmosphere. Descend into Jupitor and stop at about 1 atmosphere and you'll find the temperature is again not that different from earth. Jupitor is obviously colder at one atmosphere and Venus is hotter. But they're all at different distances from the sun.
The composition of the atmosphere is less relevant than its density. So even the initial premise is dubious.
Now why is that sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 special? It isn't. The sun doesn't emit appreciably more energy on it and that spectrum plays no special part keeping the earth warm or cool. The relevant factor is the density of the entire atmosphere. And nothing we've done has changed that.
And then you have to take into consideration that the amount any gas is going to block something in the air is going to be relative to its concentrations.
The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are low. Plants have to actually work very hard to get CO2 which is why green house growers will often pump CO2 into the green house to accelerate plant growth.
Now if you actually want to talk about this... then we can do that. If instead like most of the progressive fucktards your only interest is in censoring and silencing the opposition then you can fuck yourself sideways with a rake.
... the idea was to have one plane do everything and of course the result was that it does everything poorly.
What you want is not one plane but maybe a dozen different types that all do different things.
The A10s are the tank buskers. Using the F35 for close ground support is dumb. The need to take off from a crap airfield which is something the marines like?... Boeing has some very cheap VTOL planes that should have taken that role up.
The british that refuse to put a catapult on their ships should just stick with the harrier until they get over that and put a catapult on their decks. Maybe the new magnetic ones will be more acceptable to them.
The idea I suppose was that if they had one plane they'd save money on maintenance. But that clearly hasn't happened. I'd cut losses and shift to more planes doing different roles.
what does profanity have to do with anything, fucktard?
I never claimed I didn't use profanity and using or not using it doesn't make someone right or wrong.
As to bingo, he admits it. I've talked to him about it a few times. He's been following me for months.
His posts are really distinctive... I don't think i've ever miss addressed him... he's that obvious. And as I said, I've talked to him about it. He has reasons... bordom apparently that compel him to troll someone and I got picked.
If it were just him I wouldn't have such a low opinion of ACs... my real issue is that practically all the really stupid posts are from ACs. I don't know why that is... possibly the additional anonymity causes ACs to think even less about what they post? Its hard to say.
But they're almost entirely without value in the community. Whatever the intention, the AC login system basically just enables sock puppeting and trolling. I grant that you could use it for a good purpose but I haven't seen it used that way to any significant extent.
why pay 100 dollars for what you could do just by removing them from your channel guide?
I did that to my parents cable system. I don't use cable myself... there's nothing I care about on it.
But my dad was having a hard time because his system has like a 1000 channels and he's personally only interested in perhaps 20 of them. Which left the poor guy scrolling through endless garbage he doesn't care about.
So I sat down with him and we blocked all the Spanish stations, all the home shopping stations, all the pay per view movie stations, all the stations he isn't subscribed to, etc etc etc.
In the end he was left with a couple news stations, the sports stations, and a couple other stations that have shows or movies he likes.
What is obnoxious is that you can't NOT pay for those stations.
The package pricing system should be al la carte. You pick the stations you want... pay for those... and everything else gets dumped.
And that will only last until all the cable stations worth actually paying for become streaming services.
And even better, is if you only paid for the programs you actually want to watch.
Take HBO... is there anything on HBO at this point worth watching besides game of thrones? If so I'm ignorant of it.
Here is what makes sense to me... are you familiar with TellTale games? They do episodic casual story driven PC games.
What is important though is the business model. What they'll do is sell the episodes individually or in series packages. I normally buy the whole series. its cheaper and I only do it when I know I'm going to enjoy it. I bought the Wolf Amongst Us for example.
The point is that television series should work the same way.
Forget even the channel/station. that's like subscribing to everything paramount or Warner brothers puts out... never mind that most people are only going to like a fraction of it.
What we should be doing is subscribing to specific shows. No package. or at least it should be an option.
I don't stalk anyone, you complete fucking retard.
Look at my posting history. I basically never post in response to someone else's posts.
What i do is make my own post to a topic and then people post in response to that and then I respond to them.
That means people come to ME. I don't stalk anyone. Go through my posting history. I don't even read other people's comments outside of my own threads. I see an article I want to comment on... and I comment on.
People only get responses from me when they respond TO ME.
So saying I stalk people when really you're the AC dipshit that joined MY thread to harass ME... is frankly beyond the fucking pale. If you were a cartoon you'd be strike by lightening for being a hypocrite.
The only thing you said in there that was relevant was your assertion at the end that the temps are going up.
Lets look at that.
First, the surface temperature is based on increasingly smaller numbers of stations. By the own rating system of various people that compile these into ONE global temperature number they're mostly not very accurate. And even when they are, the majority of the cited warming occurs in places there are no stations or very very few. Nearly all the warming for example is supposed to be at the poles. But there are almost no stations in the poles.
The majority of the world's surface temp data... and down to a fraction of a degree no less is abstracted from a shrinking number of stations with everything in between being a guess. A guess with math... but still a guess.
To make matters more complicated the sat data is adjusted to match the surface data. When the stats were launched they were believed to be quite accurate. Since then they have their readings INCREASED every year basically to harmonize them with the surface stations.
The current "correction" is about.4 C... or nearly exactly the amount of warming that your crowd says we've had since then.
Which is itself very convenient. Why would the sats have a calibration error that is from what I can see.. precisely what warming you're citing? Doesn't that seem more than a little coincidental?
The calibration error should be more or less than that. And yet... bang on the same figure you're citing the world warmed.
In regards to the ocean, the depths of the ocean are not warming. All this warming is happening at the surface and much of that is a result of climate cycles that are well understood. We went through a warming cycle from 1860 to 1940 I believe. There are papers on file citing that and then it cooled. But the point is that the temperature is not sinked in the depths. It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters. I can cite the NASA findings on that point if you doubt me.
As to sea level rise, we're talking about what amounts to very small changes in sea level and there is no way to know how much of that is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle.
We get these changes during la nina and el ninos amongst other cycles. So saying that this is a long time trend would require long time data that went outside the scope of your information. You're thus overstating your knowledge.
As to Ice mass, that appears to be an oversimplification. There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice and there are regions that are stable. From what I've been able to tell, the places that are losing ice typically have lots of reasons for the ice declining besides global climate change. There are quite a few geothermal vents for example.
What is more it is relevant that you're citing ice mass and not ice extent. Because ice mass is difficult to estimate and ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline.
There are low years and sometimes that will persist for awhile but it springs back. The alarmists were citing ice extent for awhile but then the data shifted on them and they started talking about ice mass which is relatively very hard to estimate with any accuracy.
What is more, if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far. The fact that we're not suggests that the ice being lost in one place is either not that much or is being compensated for somewhere else.
Just stop for a moment. How much ice are you saying has melted in the last 100 years or... pick your time period. By volume or weight... just give me your rough estimate.
I've seen numbers ranging from around 60~100 Ã-- 10^6 square kilometers... most of that in the Antarctic.
So how much of that do you say has melted. Because here it becomes very easy to see if it actually happened. We can look at the volume of water in
So... more ad hominem? Respond to the peer reviewed paper... if you're going to be an idiot on the issue then lets just stick to the source you're least able to play games with. I have no patience or respect for this notion that a valid point can be dismissed on the grounds that you don't respect the person making it. It is a textbook logical fallacy.
I repeat... ZERO respect for that presumption.
So get on topic and if you need to discount the sources you don't like and focus exclusively on the one that you can handle to be able to have a discussion... then do that.
If you can't... then you have nothing constructive to offer this discussion and I'll kindly ask you to stop wasting my time.
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
So my crime if you can call it that was assuming that you were taking a side since everyone else was... if I am in error there and you have no opinion and do not wish your statements to be taken in any way as an endorsement of either side then so be it and I apologize for assuming otherwise.
So... I accept your statement that you're not taking sides... and simply will conclude that I have taken sides obviously and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.
I use a script blocking program to block the background. Also, I do the search through the firefox search bar so I don't even see the main site. I just see the results page.
The only thing keeping the cable model going at this point is sports.
That's it. And the instant the sports leagues think they can make as much money on line... cable is done.
Would you pay a 100 dollars a year for access to every NFL game streamed to your machine of choice? A lot of people would.
Total up the sports leagues people care about... football, basketball, soccer if you swing that way... Its a finite number of leagues that people care about and you could charge 10 bucks a month for access, discounting for a yearly subscription, and maybe throw in minor leagues of the same sport. So the NFL package gets you all the college games etc.
Its entirely viable. And if that means no blackouts and the ability to watch the games on your smartphone or tablet... Sure, there is sling boxes and some cable services let you stream anything to your devices. But the underlying problem with cable is that it isn't fully a la carte. And until it is... there's going to be a problem.
The vast majority of what people pay for with their cable package is something they have zero interest in watching. None.
We're spending a lot of money on other things besides our cable now as well. We've got all these new streaming services. And on top of that the cable bills have gone up.
Something has to give there. The reality is that people tend to prefer netflix for general entertainment programming... the only edge cable has is the dubious value of cable news stations and sports.
It was really painful initially because bing used to be garbage. I would try searches on bing first and if it was failing which was frequent in the early days then I'd switch back to google for that search and then go right back to bing.
These days bing and google do a equally good job so far as I can tell.
All that said, I miss Altavista.:)
I felt they were just as good as google in the old days. I don't know why google ultimately dominated altavista. They talk about their magical algorithms but every time they're explained in detail it turns out they're neither mysterious nor especially different from what anyone else was doing.
Maybe I'm missing something. I haven't researched it extensively. I've just looked a few in depth explanations of the system as well as years of anecdotal experience with the various engines. Google became better than everyone else but that only happened AFTER they became popular. Altavista was initially as good or better. I think one of the funnier things to go down was the whole war over the google bar versus bing bar. Most people don't know this but the top search engines rely heavily on what amounts to spyware which is used to determine what sort of page you actually wanted to see when you typed in whatever into the engine.
Google got upset with MS because they were supposedly copying google's results. But what had happened was that people with the bing bar were using google and so the bing bar learning from that and inputing the results into the bing system. Google accused MS of intentionally copying them. But it was just the stupid bing bar.
Google of course does the same thing with Chrome etc... and of course the f'ing tracking cookies and javascript are ridiculous these days.
wiring an old building for ethernet is going to require some flexibility.
In practice, you can either run the ethernet through those conduits or you canrun the cable along the walls stapling the ethernet cable around corners and stuff. You choose.
If it bothers you, then you can install ethernet surge protectors at each socket within the wall panel. Those will run you about 5-7 dollars each.
Up to you.
Here is the thing, the wires in an ethernet cable aren't going to carry high voltage. The wires themselves will burn like a fuse before they push the kind of current that worries you. Look at lamp wire. that is what is required to carry wall voltage and just for the amperage of a lamp.
If the insulation fails on the electrical wiring and the insulation fails in the ethernet cable... worst case the ethernet cable might fry an Ethernet card or router... And the cable will probably destroy itself in the process.
There's your safety issue.
Are you going to be able to electrocute someone with an ethernet cable? No. So remind me what I'm worried about again in the unlikely even that the insulation cracks at just the right spot on two cables to put line voltage down the ethernet cable?
Again... if does bother you... and I suppose I'd consider what I plugged into it... but if it worried me then I'd just use some of the surge protectors. There are lightening surge protectors for ethernet sockets that cost about 7 dollars a piece. They're designed to trip if they get more than about 7 volts down the line.
I'm not an electrician so many I'm making some sort of rookie assumption here but that sounds like it addresses the problem.
Your attempt to strawman my entire position as being based on a single source that I frankly picked out of a fucking hat when asked to back up my position is not valid.
Even if for the sake of argument I entirely surrender that source which would rob you of any further ability to use that link ad hominem against my position in any way... EVEN if I did that... I have so many other independent sources saying the same thing that it doesn't matter.
You're attacking one head of a hydra. You want to take that head? Go for it. I don't think your claim against it is enough to actually invalidate the entire source. But for the sake of argument... lets say it does... what did you fucking accomplish with that?
Jack or shit?
Because there are so many other fucking sources saying the same thing with varying degrees of evidence going all the way up to peer reviewed studies of the study... that your fixation on that one source is utterly meaningless.
Meaningless.
As in... without meaning. You're attacking something that doesn't matter.
To be substantive on this issue you're going to have to defend the position rather than simply playing ad hominem whack-o-mole with dozens of sources.
Specifically to your question then, ocean pH has fluctuated over time... in some cases quite dramatically.
There was an expedition not long ago that was pulling up core samples to get a history of it... the cores went back something like 53 million years. And yeah... the pH moves about quite a bit.
Again, coral is a very ancient species. You don't get species that old unless they're tough sons of bitches.
We're talking about a species that survived vast changes in the earth's biosphere. We're talking about a species that has been preyed upon by an endless procession of species and the coral outlived them all. We're talking about a species that survived the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. We're talking about a species that has lived through many ice ages largely unchanged.
Coral as a collective is extremely tough. As individuals they die to anything. Think bad thoughts about coral and it dies. Say you don't believe in coral without clapping your hands afterwards and that kills fairies and... and coral. Bad breath probably kills coral.
The thing is yes... it is absurdly sensitive to any change in its environment and tends to respond to just about anything by bleaching. However not all the coral dies in any of these situations and the survivors recolonize the reef.
This is talking about how oil spills effected coral reefs in South America and the middle east.
The results were bad when the oil was all over the place. But when the oil was finally digested by the ecosystem... oil is edible to some kinds of bacteria... once the oil was gone... the reefs were fine.
A point on oil specifically... its actually 100 percent fucking natural. Petroleum bubbles up around the world in various places and always has. That is not to say oil spills are fine or we shouldn't care about the poor pelicans that get coated in oil. that's tragic and the oil companies should be penalized for being sloppy with that stuff.
BUUUUT... the ecosystem actually can deal with it. Yes... it will kill birds and fish and fuck up all sorts of things. But the real engine of the planet's biosphere... the bacteria and algae... they don't mind it so much. The bacteria literally can eat it. When we had that big BP spill most of the fish were getting killed due to oxygen deprivation because the bacteria were so active eating the oil that they were using up all the oxygen in the water. IT wasn't the oil killing most of those fish. It was the biosphere digesting the oil that was killing the fish.
Anyway, coral is more similar to the bacteria and the algae than it is similar to the fish. Just like the bacteria or the algae, coral is very easy to kill. You can kill the majority of bacteria in any situation VERY easily. However... killing ALL of it is nearly fucking impossible. And any small amount that survives... will rapidly multiply until whatever numbers were lost are entirely replaced and possibly then some... plus an increasing resistance to whatever you did to kill past generations.
It adapts very quickly.
It is being increasingly pointed out by coral experts that the Maldives for example will not be submerged. Because the coral is responding to the various things going on with the land and water in the area... and ultimately breeding to stay near the surface and trying to create as many reefs around the islands as possible because it suits their biological needs.
I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.
Choke on it.
As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper... how many peer reviewed papers does it take to refute one peer reviewed paper?
I believe one is quite sufficent.
Science isn't a popularity contest and it isn't a question of shows of hands. Its who's right and who's wrong.
And we're only talking about this consensus thing because the cargo cult progressive pesudo science left is so terrified of actually having to defend anything that they immediately move to censor any decenting opinion by any means.
That often means you call anyone that disagrees with you a bigot of some type. Doesn't matter what anyone did or said or the relevance of that claim... just calling someone a bigot tends to damage their ability to speak which is your point.
And if that doesn't work you'll find some other ad hominem/identity politics bullshit to justify what you really want which is to censor all dissenting views.
In the case of climate change, your opposition were called "deniers" to infer that they were like holcocaust deniers... which associates them with racists, nazis, white suppremacists, and other flavors of taboo bigotry.
And when that doesn't work you start playing these "we have a consensus" games suggesting that you don't actually need to defend any of your positions because after all you doctored some statistics that show lots of people agree with you. And as anyone utterly ignorant of science might presume... a majority vote is in any way meaningful in science.
But here's the thing... You're wrong on all counts.
Your opposition are not bigots. You do not have a consensus. And your theories have been failing to predict anything accurately since always.
All you've got are some retconned computer models that have to be whitewashed every year to hide the fact that they've yet again failed to model the climate at all.
New York was supposed to be under water by 2015 according to you morons. Is it?
What about the rest of your stupid predictions... and of that stuff happen? Not any of it.
You've accurately predicted nothing.
All you've done is introduce your slimely rhetorical tactics and sophistry into another institution that really can't afford to have you fucking it up as well.
You people turn everything you touch to shit.
Look at the US... look at places you control utterly... Compare them to what they looked like before you controlled them. Its night and day. You destroy EVERYTHING you touch.
And my attitude with you at this point is you can control everything in some region of the world. Utter and total domination. But your cess pit needs to not cover the entire planet. This country is only going to survive if people like you don't systematically destroy everything that makes our society work.
Fuck up your own backyard. Destroy your own universities. Destroy your own police forces. Destroy your own education system. Destroy your own health services. Destroy your own industrial base. Destroy yourself if that is what you want to do.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a trade off. The added logistics costs are already far below what this stupid project has already cost.
And indifferent to that, the F35 is objectively inferior to 12 different specialized planes. So you're not saving money and your doing a less effective job.
aka total and complete failure.
Grade F. Come see me after class.
The size doesn't make them expensive. Take a cargo ship and give it a flat top. That is what we did in WW2. It works fine. YES YES... you couldn't make the literal same fucking ship because the planes are different. But in concept you could generally the same thing.
What makes warships expensive is pretty much everything but size and the size of the deck. So just start with the requirement that you have a reasonable deck size and then you won't have these problems.
Your link equated the concentrations of CO2 with that of a poison.
That stupid.
First, lets go over the only spectrum that CO2 even absorbs... now overlay that with the spectrums of other compounds in the atmosphere like water vapor and you're left with a tiny sliver of UNIQUE spectrum that it blocks.
The painted window analogy is also stupid because CO2 isn't analogous to opaque paint. Its if you like analogous to basically transparent paint. And a thin layer of it at that.
The climate models that that started this whole thing were based on studies of Venus... which is dominated by CO2.
And another point, Venus actually isn't made hot because of CO2. Its made hot instead because it is closer to the sun and its atmosphere is a lot denser. Compare the temperature of venus to the temperature of earth AT one atmpsohere which is earth sea level and you'll find that venus's temps aren't that much higher than the earth's. The issue is that you can keep going down in Venus's atmosphere and it gets hotter as you do.
The same thing can be found on every planet with an atmosphere. Descend into Jupitor and stop at about 1 atmosphere and you'll find the temperature is again not that different from earth. Jupitor is obviously colder at one atmosphere and Venus is hotter. But they're all at different distances from the sun.
The composition of the atmosphere is less relevant than its density. So even the initial premise is dubious.
Now why is that sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 special? It isn't. The sun doesn't emit appreciably more energy on it and that spectrum plays no special part keeping the earth warm or cool. The relevant factor is the density of the entire atmosphere. And nothing we've done has changed that.
And then you have to take into consideration that the amount any gas is going to block something in the air is going to be relative to its concentrations.
The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are low. Plants have to actually work very hard to get CO2 which is why green house growers will often pump CO2 into the green house to accelerate plant growth.
Now if you actually want to talk about this... then we can do that. If instead like most of the progressive fucktards your only interest is in censoring and silencing the opposition then you can fuck yourself sideways with a rake.
... the idea was to have one plane do everything and of course the result was that it does everything poorly.
What you want is not one plane but maybe a dozen different types that all do different things.
The A10s are the tank buskers. Using the F35 for close ground support is dumb. The need to take off from a crap airfield which is something the marines like?... Boeing has some very cheap VTOL planes that should have taken that role up.
The british that refuse to put a catapult on their ships should just stick with the harrier until they get over that and put a catapult on their decks. Maybe the new magnetic ones will be more acceptable to them.
The idea I suppose was that if they had one plane they'd save money on maintenance. But that clearly hasn't happened. I'd cut losses and shift to more planes doing different roles.
worst case I have to pull the cable out of the wall which is easier than putting it in. So... I still don't care.
If striking down one data source meant someone was a liar then everyone in science would be liars.
You're an idiot.
what does profanity have to do with anything, fucktard?
I never claimed I didn't use profanity and using or not using it doesn't make someone right or wrong.
As to bingo, he admits it. I've talked to him about it a few times. He's been following me for months.
His posts are really distinctive... I don't think i've ever miss addressed him... he's that obvious. And as I said, I've talked to him about it. He has reasons... bordom apparently that compel him to troll someone and I got picked.
If it were just him I wouldn't have such a low opinion of ACs... my real issue is that practically all the really stupid posts are from ACs. I don't know why that is... possibly the additional anonymity causes ACs to think even less about what they post? Its hard to say.
But they're almost entirely without value in the community. Whatever the intention, the AC login system basically just enables sock puppeting and trolling. I grant that you could use it for a good purpose but I haven't seen it used that way to any significant extent.
Find out.
why pay 100 dollars for what you could do just by removing them from your channel guide?
I did that to my parents cable system. I don't use cable myself... there's nothing I care about on it.
But my dad was having a hard time because his system has like a 1000 channels and he's personally only interested in perhaps 20 of them. Which left the poor guy scrolling through endless garbage he doesn't care about.
So I sat down with him and we blocked all the Spanish stations, all the home shopping stations, all the pay per view movie stations, all the stations he isn't subscribed to, etc etc etc.
In the end he was left with a couple news stations, the sports stations, and a couple other stations that have shows or movies he likes.
What is obnoxious is that you can't NOT pay for those stations.
The package pricing system should be al la carte. You pick the stations you want... pay for those... and everything else gets dumped.
And that will only last until all the cable stations worth actually paying for become streaming services.
And even better, is if you only paid for the programs you actually want to watch.
Take HBO... is there anything on HBO at this point worth watching besides game of thrones? If so I'm ignorant of it.
Here is what makes sense to me... are you familiar with TellTale games? They do episodic casual story driven PC games.
What is important though is the business model. What they'll do is sell the episodes individually or in series packages. I normally buy the whole series. its cheaper and I only do it when I know I'm going to enjoy it. I bought the Wolf Amongst Us for example.
The point is that television series should work the same way.
Forget even the channel/station. that's like subscribing to everything paramount or Warner brothers puts out... never mind that most people are only going to like a fraction of it.
What we should be doing is subscribing to specific shows. No package. or at least it should be an option.
I don't stalk anyone, you complete fucking retard.
Look at my posting history. I basically never post in response to someone else's posts.
What i do is make my own post to a topic and then people post in response to that and then I respond to them.
That means people come to ME. I don't stalk anyone. Go through my posting history. I don't even read other people's comments outside of my own threads. I see an article I want to comment on... and I comment on.
People only get responses from me when they respond TO ME.
So saying I stalk people when really you're the AC dipshit that joined MY thread to harass ME... is frankly beyond the fucking pale. If you were a cartoon you'd be strike by lightening for being a hypocrite.
And an idiot.
to clarify, the sea ice number I cited was the estimated volume of sea ice not the loss or gain there of.
The only thing you said in there that was relevant was your assertion at the end that the temps are going up.
Lets look at that.
First, the surface temperature is based on increasingly smaller numbers of stations. By the own rating system of various people that compile these into ONE global temperature number they're mostly not very accurate. And even when they are, the majority of the cited warming occurs in places there are no stations or very very few. Nearly all the warming for example is supposed to be at the poles. But there are almost no stations in the poles.
The majority of the world's surface temp data... and down to a fraction of a degree no less is abstracted from a shrinking number of stations with everything in between being a guess. A guess with math... but still a guess.
To make matters more complicated the sat data is adjusted to match the surface data. When the stats were launched they were believed to be quite accurate. Since then they have their readings INCREASED every year basically to harmonize them with the surface stations.
The current "correction" is about .4 C... or nearly exactly the amount of warming that your crowd says we've had since then.
Which is itself very convenient. Why would the sats have a calibration error that is from what I can see.. precisely what warming you're citing? Doesn't that seem more than a little coincidental?
The calibration error should be more or less than that. And yet... bang on the same figure you're citing the world warmed.
In regards to the ocean, the depths of the ocean are not warming. All this warming is happening at the surface and much of that is a result of climate cycles that are well understood. We went through a warming cycle from 1860 to 1940 I believe. There are papers on file citing that and then it cooled. But the point is that the temperature is not sinked in the depths. It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters. I can cite the NASA findings on that point if you doubt me.
As to sea level rise, we're talking about what amounts to very small changes in sea level and there is no way to know how much of that is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle.
We get these changes during la nina and el ninos amongst other cycles. So saying that this is a long time trend would require long time data that went outside the scope of your information. You're thus overstating your knowledge.
As to Ice mass, that appears to be an oversimplification. There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice and there are regions that are stable. From what I've been able to tell, the places that are losing ice typically have lots of reasons for the ice declining besides global climate change. There are quite a few geothermal vents for example.
What is more it is relevant that you're citing ice mass and not ice extent. Because ice mass is difficult to estimate and ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline.
There are low years and sometimes that will persist for awhile but it springs back. The alarmists were citing ice extent for awhile but then the data shifted on them and they started talking about ice mass which is relatively very hard to estimate with any accuracy.
What is more, if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far. The fact that we're not suggests that the ice being lost in one place is either not that much or is being compensated for somewhere else.
Just stop for a moment. How much ice are you saying has melted in the last 100 years or... pick your time period. By volume or weight... just give me your rough estimate.
I've seen numbers ranging from around 60~100 Ã-- 10^6 square kilometers... most of that in the Antarctic.
So how much of that do you say has melted. Because here it becomes very easy to see if it actually happened. We can look at the volume of water in
Nothing of value... oh well.
So... more ad hominem? Respond to the peer reviewed paper... if you're going to be an idiot on the issue then lets just stick to the source you're least able to play games with. I have no patience or respect for this notion that a valid point can be dismissed on the grounds that you don't respect the person making it. It is a textbook logical fallacy.
I repeat... ZERO respect for that presumption.
So get on topic and if you need to discount the sources you don't like and focus exclusively on the one that you can handle to be able to have a discussion... then do that.
If you can't... then you have nothing constructive to offer this discussion and I'll kindly ask you to stop wasting my time.
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
So my crime if you can call it that was assuming that you were taking a side since everyone else was... if I am in error there and you have no opinion and do not wish your statements to be taken in any way as an endorsement of either side then so be it and I apologize for assuming otherwise.
So... I accept your statement that you're not taking sides... and simply will conclude that I have taken sides obviously and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.
old school altavista was pretty simple.
google had that stuff as well at the time as I remember.
Link farms were actually quite common on the search engines until quite recently.
I use a script blocking program to block the background. Also, I do the search through the firefox search bar so I don't even see the main site. I just see the results page.
The subscriber base is ratcheting down.
The only thing keeping the cable model going at this point is sports.
That's it. And the instant the sports leagues think they can make as much money on line... cable is done.
Would you pay a 100 dollars a year for access to every NFL game streamed to your machine of choice? A lot of people would.
Total up the sports leagues people care about... football, basketball, soccer if you swing that way... Its a finite number of leagues that people care about and you could charge 10 bucks a month for access, discounting for a yearly subscription, and maybe throw in minor leagues of the same sport. So the NFL package gets you all the college games etc.
Its entirely viable. And if that means no blackouts and the ability to watch the games on your smartphone or tablet... Sure, there is sling boxes and some cable services let you stream anything to your devices. But the underlying problem with cable is that it isn't fully a la carte. And until it is... there's going to be a problem.
The vast majority of what people pay for with their cable package is something they have zero interest in watching. None.
We're spending a lot of money on other things besides our cable now as well. We've got all these new streaming services. And on top of that the cable bills have gone up.
Something has to give there. The reality is that people tend to prefer netflix for general entertainment programming... the only edge cable has is the dubious value of cable news stations and sports.
... search engine.
It was really painful initially because bing used to be garbage. I would try searches on bing first and if it was failing which was frequent in the early days then I'd switch back to google for that search and then go right back to bing.
These days bing and google do a equally good job so far as I can tell.
All that said, I miss Altavista. :)
I felt they were just as good as google in the old days. I don't know why google ultimately dominated altavista. They talk about their magical algorithms but every time they're explained in detail it turns out they're neither mysterious nor especially different from what anyone else was doing.
Maybe I'm missing something. I haven't researched it extensively. I've just looked a few in depth explanations of the system as well as years of anecdotal experience with the various engines. Google became better than everyone else but that only happened AFTER they became popular. Altavista was initially as good or better. I think one of the funnier things to go down was the whole war over the google bar versus bing bar. Most people don't know this but the top search engines rely heavily on what amounts to spyware which is used to determine what sort of page you actually wanted to see when you typed in whatever into the engine.
Google got upset with MS because they were supposedly copying google's results. But what had happened was that people with the bing bar were using google and so the bing bar learning from that and inputing the results into the bing system. Google accused MS of intentionally copying them. But it was just the stupid bing bar.
Google of course does the same thing with Chrome etc... and of course the f'ing tracking cookies and javascript are ridiculous these days.
No script and cookie monster for the win.
wiring an old building for ethernet is going to require some flexibility.
In practice, you can either run the ethernet through those conduits or you canrun the cable along the walls stapling the ethernet cable around corners and stuff. You choose.
If it bothers you, then you can install ethernet surge protectors at each socket within the wall panel. Those will run you about 5-7 dollars each.
Up to you.
Here is the thing, the wires in an ethernet cable aren't going to carry high voltage. The wires themselves will burn like a fuse before they push the kind of current that worries you. Look at lamp wire. that is what is required to carry wall voltage and just for the amperage of a lamp.
If the insulation fails on the electrical wiring and the insulation fails in the ethernet cable... worst case the ethernet cable might fry an Ethernet card or router... And the cable will probably destroy itself in the process.
There's your safety issue.
Are you going to be able to electrocute someone with an ethernet cable? No. So remind me what I'm worried about again in the unlikely even that the insulation cracks at just the right spot on two cables to put line voltage down the ethernet cable?
Again... if does bother you... and I suppose I'd consider what I plugged into it... but if it worried me then I'd just use some of the surge protectors. There are lightening surge protectors for ethernet sockets that cost about 7 dollars a piece. They're designed to trip if they get more than about 7 volts down the line.
I'm not an electrician so many I'm making some sort of rookie assumption here but that sounds like it addresses the problem.
Your attempt to strawman my entire position as being based on a single source that I frankly picked out of a fucking hat when asked to back up my position is not valid.
Even if for the sake of argument I entirely surrender that source which would rob you of any further ability to use that link ad hominem against my position in any way... EVEN if I did that... I have so many other independent sources saying the same thing that it doesn't matter.
You're attacking one head of a hydra. You want to take that head? Go for it. I don't think your claim against it is enough to actually invalidate the entire source. But for the sake of argument... lets say it does... what did you fucking accomplish with that?
Jack or shit?
Because there are so many other fucking sources saying the same thing with varying degrees of evidence going all the way up to peer reviewed studies of the study... that your fixation on that one source is utterly meaningless.
Meaningless.
As in... without meaning. You're attacking something that doesn't matter.
To be substantive on this issue you're going to have to defend the position rather than simply playing ad hominem whack-o-mole with dozens of sources.
Specifically to your question then, ocean pH has fluctuated over time... in some cases quite dramatically.
There was an expedition not long ago that was pulling up core samples to get a history of it... the cores went back something like 53 million years. And yeah... the pH moves about quite a bit.
Again, coral is a very ancient species. You don't get species that old unless they're tough sons of bitches.
We're talking about a species that survived vast changes in the earth's biosphere. We're talking about a species that has been preyed upon by an endless procession of species and the coral outlived them all. We're talking about a species that survived the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. We're talking about a species that has lived through many ice ages largely unchanged.
Coral as a collective is extremely tough. As individuals they die to anything. Think bad thoughts about coral and it dies. Say you don't believe in coral without clapping your hands afterwards and that kills fairies and... and coral. Bad breath probably kills coral.
The thing is yes... it is absurdly sensitive to any change in its environment and tends to respond to just about anything by bleaching. However not all the coral dies in any of these situations and the survivors recolonize the reef.
Here is something you can see:
http://coralreef.noaa.gov/abou...
This is talking about how oil spills effected coral reefs in South America and the middle east.
The results were bad when the oil was all over the place. But when the oil was finally digested by the ecosystem... oil is edible to some kinds of bacteria... once the oil was gone... the reefs were fine.
A point on oil specifically... its actually 100 percent fucking natural. Petroleum bubbles up around the world in various places and always has. That is not to say oil spills are fine or we shouldn't care about the poor pelicans that get coated in oil. that's tragic and the oil companies should be penalized for being sloppy with that stuff.
BUUUUT... the ecosystem actually can deal with it. Yes... it will kill birds and fish and fuck up all sorts of things. But the real engine of the planet's biosphere... the bacteria and algae... they don't mind it so much. The bacteria literally can eat it. When we had that big BP spill most of the fish were getting killed due to oxygen deprivation because the bacteria were so active eating the oil that they were using up all the oxygen in the water. IT wasn't the oil killing most of those fish. It was the biosphere digesting the oil that was killing the fish.
Anyway, coral is more similar to the bacteria and the algae than it is similar to the fish. Just like the bacteria or the algae, coral is very easy to kill. You can kill the majority of bacteria in any situation VERY easily. However... killing ALL of it is nearly fucking impossible. And any small amount that survives... will rapidly multiply until whatever numbers were lost are entirely replaced and possibly then some... plus an increasing resistance to whatever you did to kill past generations.
It adapts very quickly.
It is being increasingly pointed out by coral experts that the Maldives for example will not be submerged. Because the coral is responding to the various things going on with the land and water in the area... and ultimately breeding to stay near the surface and trying to create as many reefs around the islands as possible because it suits their biological needs.
""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org] ""
quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.
I didn't just cite one source, half wit.
I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.
Choke on it.
As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper... how many peer reviewed papers does it take to refute one peer reviewed paper?
I believe one is quite sufficent.
Science isn't a popularity contest and it isn't a question of shows of hands. Its who's right and who's wrong.
And we're only talking about this consensus thing because the cargo cult progressive pesudo science left is so terrified of actually having to defend anything that they immediately move to censor any decenting opinion by any means.
That often means you call anyone that disagrees with you a bigot of some type. Doesn't matter what anyone did or said or the relevance of that claim... just calling someone a bigot tends to damage their ability to speak which is your point.
And if that doesn't work you'll find some other ad hominem/identity politics bullshit to justify what you really want which is to censor all dissenting views.
In the case of climate change, your opposition were called "deniers" to infer that they were like holcocaust deniers... which associates them with racists, nazis, white suppremacists, and other flavors of taboo bigotry.
And when that doesn't work you start playing these "we have a consensus" games suggesting that you don't actually need to defend any of your positions because after all you doctored some statistics that show lots of people agree with you. And as anyone utterly ignorant of science might presume... a majority vote is in any way meaningful in science.
But here's the thing... You're wrong on all counts.
Your opposition are not bigots.
You do not have a consensus.
And your theories have been failing to predict anything accurately since always.
All you've got are some retconned computer models that have to be whitewashed every year to hide the fact that they've yet again failed to model the climate at all.
New York was supposed to be under water by 2015 according to you morons. Is it?
What about the rest of your stupid predictions... and of that stuff happen? Not any of it.
You've accurately predicted nothing.
All you've done is introduce your slimely rhetorical tactics and sophistry into another institution that really can't afford to have you fucking it up as well.
You people turn everything you touch to shit.
Look at the US... look at places you control utterly... Compare them to what they looked like before you controlled them. Its night and day. You destroy EVERYTHING you touch.
And my attitude with you at this point is you can control everything in some region of the world. Utter and total domination. But your cess pit needs to not cover the entire planet. This country is only going to survive if people like you don't systematically destroy everything that makes our society work.
Fuck up your own backyard. Destroy your own universities. Destroy your own police forces. Destroy your own education system. Destroy your own health services. Destroy your own industrial base. Destroy yourself if that is what you want to do.
But you're not taking me with you.