yes the tides in those locations are important to know...for the trade in those locations.
but that doesn't mean they are the best locations for knowledge of the entire tidal system of an ocean. those readings get used because they are available.
but many things affect tides, from local geography to local gravity to nearby river flow (or lack). and this bit of knowledge is about a) finding better sites more representative of the whole system rather than just that locality, and b) better adjusting or calibrating data from these localities.
and yet when NOAA reports findings that further the science of global warming, and NASA makes a contradictory report, you are among the first to use the NASA report to bash the NOAA one.
its almost like youre picking who to support based on some preconceived notion of your own, rather than on the science being presented.
NEWSFLASH: different groups of scientists have disagreements. but that doesn't mean that either one or both are wrong. Even within each individual agency, within NASA, and within NOAA, you will several different research groups, researching the same things, even with the data oftentimes, who will arrive at differing conclusions.
this is the scientific process, and it involves discussion and review before something is completely rejected.
and it doesn't need its waters muddied by ignorant agenda pushers like you.
and you simply don't know what youre talking about.
now, and every time you post on this topic.
and again you use as your shield that stupid fallacious trick of your where first you demand certain irrelvent criteria, and then should anyone actually engage with them, deny that the deflecting criteria have even been met.
that's why California totally isn't the 6th largest economy in the world. Chicago's economy totally isn't the size of Switzerland. and NYC totally isn't larger than all of Canada.
subsidies are a red herring. the market isn't fair, and new technologies, particularly those like power generation that are inherently dependent on expanding or new infrastructure, cannot always stand by themselves because the already entrenched systems benefit from systemic bias cause by their mere older existence.
ie, the existing infrastructure is already there, already entrenched. the new tech needs to build out new infrastructure.
subsidies thus serve two purposes: 1) help to overcome the inherent economic inertial bias of the current systems, and 2) to encourage the switch to newer more desirable tech that in the long run would be more beneficial.
coal, gas, etc, all already receive tremendous amounts in subsidies and systemic market advantages that are often overlooked or ignored.
We have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility. The ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated. That's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm), and why 400ppm is considered the threshold of irreversibility.
Nor would we necessarily fine, nor would we better off. We may biologically survive 1000ppm with only chronic nausea and headache, but there many other factors that would dramatically impair our survival.
Now, you've made progress having advanced to Stages 4 and 5 of Climate Denial ("we can't solve it" and "its too late, so why bother doing anything"). But you need to keep learning if you want to progress further, because you haven't actually escaped denialism yet.
To reiterate: -We can solve it. -And even if it's too late for us, or even our grandchildren, we can still solve it for their children or grandchildren.
Remember:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
We have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility. The ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated. That's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm), and why 400ppm is considered the threshold of irreversibility.
or maybe because the EU simply isn't perfect, and is not just a democracy of several competing demands, but a collection of them. seriously, in what world is your comment at all a useful, logical argument, and not false dichotomy that contributes nothing but a distraction?
we have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility. the ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated, and that's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm).
Actually the statement "Queue the world ending in 5... 4... 3... " isn't an incorrect statement, it just doesn't mean what the OP thinks it does or meant to say.
Slashdot Mirror
They are skeptical of the MAN MADE portion of that
Which is an equally silly and stupid position to take.
over a fallacious and unscientific idea that man is solely responsible for climate change.
It is neither a fallacy nor unscientific.
Were there no man-made or man-caused mechanisms in play, the earth would be slightly cooling right now.
If you were to take the last 50,000 years of the Earth, you would see spikes of cold and warm periods throughout
None of which were as large, as fast, nor as universal (ie, global in scope) as what is currently occurring.
And how modern, technologically advanced society needs to be robbed of its liberty and progress
No one is suggesting that happen.
to stop a phenomenon that HAPPENS ALL THROUGHOUT TIME.
again: the current situation in no way reflects a normality that occurs regularly.
now there's an idea
aeronautics. close enough. they deal with atmosphere too.
It's not the National Space Administration.
It's the National AIR and Space Administration.
from idiots clueless idiots calling the protestors hippies and ecowarriors.
That how poor the reporting on these protests are right now.
These arent tree huggers, these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them.
they reported the truth to many times.
for RWNJs that's a sign of bias.
that's not the point they are making.
yes the tides in those locations are important to know...for the trade in those locations.
but that doesn't mean they are the best locations for knowledge of the entire tidal system of an ocean.
those readings get used because they are available.
but many things affect tides, from local geography to local gravity to nearby river flow (or lack).
and this bit of knowledge is about a) finding better sites more representative of the whole system rather than just that locality, and b) better adjusting or calibrating data from these localities.
and yet when NOAA reports findings that further the science of global warming, and NASA makes a contradictory report, you are among the first to use the NASA report to bash the NOAA one.
its almost like youre picking who to support based on some preconceived notion of your own, rather than on the science being presented.
NEWSFLASH: different groups of scientists have disagreements.
but that doesn't mean that either one or both are wrong.
Even within each individual agency, within NASA, and within NOAA, you will several different research groups, researching the same things, even with the data oftentimes, who will arrive at differing conclusions.
this is the scientific process, and it involves discussion and review before something is completely rejected.
and it doesn't need its waters muddied by ignorant agenda pushers like you.
so youre advocating that science should go backwards??
There is only word to describe you:
moron.
yes.
Reporting a finding from a group of scientists concerning previous scientific readings is "alarmism".
exactly what part of this concerns panic, dogma, and heretics?
and you simply don't know what youre talking about.
now, and every time you post on this topic.
and again you use as your shield that stupid fallacious trick of your where first you demand certain irrelvent criteria, and then should anyone actually engage with them, deny that the deflecting criteria have even been met.
go collect your pieces of eight shill.
yep.
that's why California totally isn't the 6th largest economy in the world.
Chicago's economy totally isn't the size of Switzerland.
and NYC totally isn't larger than all of Canada .
such yuuuge failures, the lot of them, amirite? /s
subsidies are a red herring. the market isn't fair, and new technologies, particularly those like power generation that are inherently dependent on expanding or new infrastructure, cannot always stand by themselves because the already entrenched systems benefit from systemic bias cause by their mere older existence.
ie, the existing infrastructure is already there, already entrenched.
the new tech needs to build out new infrastructure.
subsidies thus serve two purposes: 1) help to overcome the inherent economic inertial bias of the current systems, and 2) to encourage the switch to newer more desirable tech that in the long run would be more beneficial.
coal, gas, etc, all already receive tremendous amounts in subsidies and systemic market advantages that are often overlooked or ignored.
no no no no.
get with the program.
now its "only nukes can make all the electricity".
Just keep on pushing the hoax. By the way - are you a dupe, or do you get paid for this?
The irony in your constant projection never ceases to amaze.
it is not arbitrary.
We have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility.
The ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated.
That's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm), and why 400ppm is considered the threshold of irreversibility.
Nor would we necessarily fine, nor would we better off.
We may biologically survive 1000ppm with only chronic nausea and headache, but there many other factors that would dramatically impair our survival.
Now, you've made progress having advanced to Stages 4 and 5 of Climate Denial ("we can't solve it" and "its too late, so why bother doing anything").
But you need to keep learning if you want to progress further, because you haven't actually escaped denialism yet.
To reiterate:
-We can solve it.
-And even if it's too late for us, or even our grandchildren, we can still solve it for their children or grandchildren.
Remember:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
http://imgur.com/gallery/xtaW7...
Untrue.
We have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility.
The ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated.
That's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm), and why 400ppm is considered the threshold of irreversibility.
or maybe because the EU simply isn't perfect, and is not just a democracy of several competing demands, but a collection of them.
seriously, in what world is your comment at all a useful, logical argument, and not false dichotomy that contributes nothing but a distraction?
we have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility.
the ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated, and that's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm).
that's not how grant funding works.
Actually the statement "Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... " isn't an incorrect statement, it just doesn't mean what the OP thinks it does or meant to say.
Dude.
No.
http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Win...
People did.
This is what they found: https://goo.gl/images/zgPWQH