To sum up, with the exception of the human population, the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years. Further, it is not physically accurate to claim that the planet is simply "recovering" from the LIA. This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher. There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.
also, it's rather hard to automate readings from a mercury thermometer. so if there's a remote sensing station in Bumfuq, Alaska, if it's a mercury thermometer, someone needs to be there to physically read it, as opposed to having it transmit it's data every 24 hours or so.
You're assuming that arctic ice is freshwater. It is not. Sea ice, which is ice that has formed at sea and not calved off a land based ice sheet, is by definition sea (salt) water.
All of the Arctic sea ice, and the majority of Antarctic sea ice, is thus made of frozen sea water.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of the point you're trying to make. but whether the ice is fresh or sea water hasn't a lot to do with the discussion.
You're assuming that arctic ice is freshwater. It is not. Sea ice is by definition sea (salt) water.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of the point you're trying to make. but whether the ice is fresh or sea water hasn't a lot to do with the discussion.
Neither the Arctic ice extent (area), nor volume, is roughly equal to the mean of the last few decades. I really don't get what either of you is arguing, you're both making false claims.
Summer ice extent from July to September (the minimum period) from 1870 to 2014 (as mention above, 2015 is the 4th lowest extent, in between 2011 and 2008): http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
2013, 2014, and 2015 minimum ice extents were all higher than 2012...but that does not mean it is rebounding, especially when they are still part of a continuing downward trend as shown when graphed:
The 10 lowest minimums have all occurred in the last 11 years. This year, 2015 is the 4th lowest minimum on record. The lowest is 2012. 2015's MAXIMUM ice extent is also the lowest maximum on record.
In order the lowest minimums are: 1st: 2012 2nd: 2007 3rd: 2011 4th: 2015 5th: 2008
We know that more solar energy lands on the Earth in one hour than all of humanity consumes in an entire year (it actually only takes ~40 minutes). We need only harness a small fraction of that. and you also conveniently ignore any and all potential storage solutions, or advancing grid technology.
We also already know that, using current mainstream solar technology (therefore excluding advanced panels under development that are even more efficient), it only takes ~25k square miles to power the entire planet with solar. If located in a single location, that's a square ~158 miles on a side, which isn't terribly large given the size of the planet. Some real world engineering proposals based off that call for multiple arrays located in the planets barren locations, distributed around the world. combined with emerging smart grid electrical systems, distribution between generation, storage, and consumer, while being one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed, becomes simple, and raises the standard of living across the entire world.
but, even that, a centralized and interlinked system, isn't required. distributed generation, with every structure independent is also possible, if somewhat less efficient.
or a combination of the two, combining independent generation at individual structures, with a smart grid for distribution, which is actually the most realistic way forward.
analyses have already shown that if every residential structure in the United States alone were equipped with panels, we would generate roughly 140% of the entire worlds' electricity needs. Which translates into meeting America's needs, and thus energy independence, with only a small fraction of that. Similarly most any other country could also achieve total energy independence in similar fashion. This also excludes commercial (nonresidential structures), which while less numerous, tend to be larger, and even better suited to panel installation.
Therefore, I see little reason to proceed with nuclear, given all its drawbacks, when we already have the world's (nay, solar systems) greatest nuclear reactor shining on us every day. If we didn't have the sun, if we were further out, say at Mars' distance or further, yes, nuclear would be the way to go. But we aren't.
So again, I reiterate: while I get that you want to cheerlead for nuclear, what you said is patently false.
it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs. it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.
g federal direct subsidies. it is ignoring the numerous handouts to the oil industry at the state level, many of which don't take the form of a direct subsidy, like tax credits.
when all is totaled up, the oil/gas industry receives far from financial support from government via tax dollars and tax credits than the renewable sector does.
this isn't the first time you've tried to make this inaccurate claim.
Cars and gasoline are not a big part of an American household's budget
maybe not for you Richy McRicherson.
to substantially change automobile usage wouldn't require heavy taxation (most people drive in spite of high costs, not because its a minor bill), but rather a complete cultural transformation, the opposite of what happened in the 50s as people spread out and began leaving the cities for the 'burbs.
there are many factors as to why people drive so far to work. cars and gas being a "minor cost" is not one of them. and they are not a "minor cost", even if large sections of the public are able to afford them.
prior to the 50's substantial numbers of people DID rely of mass transit in the cities, people who were well off, compared to today where the ridership is mostly lower income people who cant afford cars or commuting (larger cities with actual efficient mass trans being the exception). American culture changed though. people left the cities for the suburbs ("white flight" being one of the reasons). the American dream expanded to include a car for everyone, commuting to the city, but living out of it. you're not going to change that with just taxation; when gas spiked up to over 5$ a gallon, people still drove, partly because they had to, and not many folks could really afford to uproot and reverse their entire living condition over a short term price spike, or would want to.
they like their lives in suburbs. and overall it's been good for the economy that people spread from the cities, as it expanded economic activity to places that were marginalized as people concentrated in the cities (we still see that marginalization even farther out, but as people expand farther, and can commute farther, easier, we'll see the same spreading of economic activity again, as dollars earned in cities flow to the region around them)
efficient mass transit expanding from the city however does have the potential to again change that culture slightly. people don't like rush hour. and it is more efficient fuel wise. and cities have shown how it can be more affordable than owning a vehicle (or at least, operating one for commuting).
Al Jazeera is a Qatari based news organization respected the world over, on a level similar to the BBC. It's main biases, such as it is, is towards Qatar itself, and specifically the ruling royal family and its interests, and occasionally a pro-sunni/anti-shia bias when reporting on regional issues in regional markets.
The only way you could actually believe they are a part of Al Qaeda is you believe all muslims are part of it, which would just make you an ignorant bigot. which frankly, meshes with your previous comments, and so wouldn't terribly surprising.
veto the Keystone pipeline that would make the US less dependent on Islamic oil
We already are not dependent on Islamic Oil.
Did you just miss the entire exploding oil infrastructure in our nation? Did you just miss that the worlds largest producer of oil is now the United States of America, both in 2014 and so far in 2015?
We are a petro nation now. The oil we do import we largely import our oil from Mexico and Canada, not the middle east. And that ignores our shrinking demand for oil, as we expand out natural gas production.
The KXL pipeline would have done -zero- to affect the supply or demand for oil in the US.
closing down Gitmo and trying to get Jihadis onto American soil so that ACLU lawyers can bail them out
The constitution applies to them just as much as it does American citizens. it applies to all persons subject to the authority of the United States Government, citizen or not, enemy combatant or not. Indefinite detainment without trial or charge is very much illegal and unconstitutional. as is the continued detainment of people classed as nonthreats (and in some cased mistaken identities) and cleared for release several months ago....but that's another story.
for the ones who actually are bad guys (and not just swept up because paid informants, whom we know never ever lie or give false information in order to get an enemy in trouble, named them) a quick trial followed by a slow hanging or life in prison isn't something im opposed to.
but you do still need to fulfill the constitution's requirements that theoretically keep the exercise of governmental power over persons in check. though, btw, you also apparently missed how he's in fact totally failed to close gitmo, going on 8 years now, and not even begun to take steps to do so.
Basically your entire post is a pile of BS that stands in total contrast to actual facts. Which is pretty much par for the course.
they only barely won this last round. they wont be there much longer. thank god. and then once they're gone, the world will breathe a sigh of relief. and peace might stand a chance again.
You would do well to compare the historical population trends of the souther compared to the rest of the nation before and after the invention and widespread adoption of Air Conditioning.
Hint: there's a reason slave labor was essential to the South's existence for the longest time. in the time Before AC it was even more sparsely populated than now, had very few large cities, and most migration was away. in the time After AC it experienced a population boom, the growth of many major cities, and migration completely reversed.
and this applies to the entire Sunbelt, from Arizona to Florida, not just the South.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The Planet is not Recovering from the LIA
To sum up, with the exception of the human population, the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years. Further, it is not physically accurate to claim that the planet is simply "recovering" from the LIA. This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher. There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.
know what happens when all data from sensors from urban heat islands are removed, in order to remove any possible heat island bias?
nothing.
which means that the idea that heat islands are biasing the data is a myth.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
also, it's rather hard to automate readings from a mercury thermometer. so if there's a remote sensing station in Bumfuq, Alaska, if it's a mercury thermometer, someone needs to be there to physically read it, as opposed to having it transmit it's data every 24 hours or so.
no the total locked up is not a at a new record.
even the author of the nasa paper is complaining that deniers are misstating what his study actually says:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
You're assuming that arctic ice is freshwater.
It is not. Sea ice, which is ice that has formed at sea and not calved off a land based ice sheet, is by definition sea (salt) water.
All of the Arctic sea ice, and the majority of Antarctic sea ice, is thus made of frozen sea water.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of the point you're trying to make.
but whether the ice is fresh or sea water hasn't a lot to do with the discussion.
nasa is not saying what you think they are saying.
this needs modded up
You're assuming that arctic ice is freshwater.
It is not. Sea ice is by definition sea (salt) water.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of the point you're trying to make.
but whether the ice is fresh or sea water hasn't a lot to do with the discussion.
Neither the Arctic ice extent (area), nor volume, is roughly equal to the mean of the last few decades.
I really don't get what either of you is arguing, you're both making false claims.
The infamous death spiral graph, showing monthly volume from 1979 to 2015:
http://skepticalscience.com//p...
Summer ice extent from July to September (the minimum period) from 1870 to 2014 (as mention above, 2015 is the 4th lowest extent, in between 2011 and 2008):
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
Average monthly extent from 1979 to 2015:
https://polarbearscience.files...
ice volume trend graph 1979-2014:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...
no, the arctic is not rebounding.
2013, 2014, and 2015 minimum ice extents were all higher than 2012...but that does not mean it is rebounding, especially when they are still part of a continuing downward trend as shown when graphed:
The 10 lowest minimums have all occurred in the last 11 years.
This year, 2015 is the 4th lowest minimum on record.
The lowest is 2012.
2015's MAXIMUM ice extent is also the lowest maximum on record.
In order the lowest minimums are:
1st: 2012
2nd: 2007
3rd: 2011
4th: 2015
5th: 2008
Relevant graphs to help you picture it:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
http://skepticalscience.com//p...
'solar and wind cant cut it alone'
Again.
That statement is purely false.
We know that more solar energy lands on the Earth in one hour than all of humanity consumes in an entire year ( it actually only takes ~40 minutes ). We need only harness a small fraction of that. and you also conveniently ignore any and all potential storage solutions, or advancing grid technology.
We also already know that, using current mainstream solar technology (therefore excluding advanced panels under development that are even more efficient), it only takes ~25k square miles to power the entire planet with solar. If located in a single location, that's a square ~158 miles on a side, which isn't terribly large given the size of the planet. Some real world engineering proposals based off that call for multiple arrays located in the planets barren locations, distributed around the world. combined with emerging smart grid electrical systems, distribution between generation, storage, and consumer, while being one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed, becomes simple, and raises the standard of living across the entire world.
but, even that, a centralized and interlinked system, isn't required.
distributed generation, with every structure independent is also possible, if somewhat less efficient.
or a combination of the two, combining independent generation at individual structures, with a smart grid for distribution, which is actually the most realistic way forward.
analyses have already shown that if every residential structure in the United States alone were equipped with panels, we would generate roughly 140% of the entire worlds' electricity needs. Which translates into meeting America's needs, and thus energy independence, with only a small fraction of that. Similarly most any other country could also achieve total energy independence in similar fashion. This also excludes commercial (nonresidential structures), which while less numerous, tend to be larger, and even better suited to panel installation.
Therefore, I see little reason to proceed with nuclear, given all its drawbacks, when we already have the world's (nay, solar systems) greatest nuclear reactor shining on us every day. If we didn't have the sun, if we were further out, say at Mars' distance or further, yes, nuclear would be the way to go. But we aren't.
So again, I reiterate: while I get that you want to cheerlead for nuclear, what you said is patently false.
nope, not flamebait
it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs.
it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.
its your straw man
g federal direct subsidies. it is ignoring the numerous handouts to the oil industry at the state level, many of which don't take the form of a direct subsidy, like tax credits.
when all is totaled up, the oil/gas industry receives far from financial support from government via tax dollars and tax credits than the renewable sector does.
this isn't the first time you've tried to make this inaccurate claim.
Cars and gasoline are not a big part of an American household's budget
maybe not for you Richy McRicherson.
to substantially change automobile usage wouldn't require heavy taxation (most people drive in spite of high costs, not because its a minor bill), but rather a complete cultural transformation, the opposite of what happened in the 50s as people spread out and began leaving the cities for the 'burbs.
there are many factors as to why people drive so far to work.
cars and gas being a "minor cost" is not one of them.
and they are not a "minor cost", even if large sections of the public are able to afford them.
prior to the 50's substantial numbers of people DID rely of mass transit in the cities, people who were well off, compared to today where the ridership is mostly lower income people who cant afford cars or commuting (larger cities with actual efficient mass trans being the exception). American culture changed though. people left the cities for the suburbs ("white flight" being one of the reasons). the American dream expanded to include a car for everyone, commuting to the city, but living out of it. you're not going to change that with just taxation; when gas spiked up to over 5$ a gallon, people still drove, partly because they had to, and not many folks could really afford to uproot and reverse their entire living condition over a short term price spike, or would want to.
they like their lives in suburbs.
and overall it's been good for the economy that people spread from the cities, as it expanded economic activity to places that were marginalized as people concentrated in the cities (we still see that marginalization even farther out, but as people expand farther, and can commute farther, easier, we'll see the same spreading of economic activity again, as dollars earned in cities flow to the region around them)
efficient mass transit expanding from the city however does have the potential to again change that culture slightly. people don't like rush hour. and it is more efficient fuel wise. and cities have shown how it can be more affordable than owning a vehicle (or at least, operating one for commuting).
More ignorance.
Al Jazeera is a Qatari based news organization respected the world over, on a level similar to the BBC.
It's main biases, such as it is, is towards Qatar itself, and specifically the ruling royal family and its interests, and occasionally a pro-sunni/anti-shia bias when reporting on regional issues in regional markets.
The only way you could actually believe they are a part of Al Qaeda is you believe all muslims are part of it, which would just make you an ignorant bigot.
which frankly, meshes with your previous comments, and so wouldn't terribly surprising.
veto the Keystone pipeline that would make the US less dependent on Islamic oil
We already are not dependent on Islamic Oil.
Did you just miss the entire exploding oil infrastructure in our nation?
Did you just miss that the worlds largest producer of oil is now the United States of America, both in 2014 and so far in 2015?
We are a petro nation now. The oil we do import we largely import our oil from Mexico and Canada, not the middle east.
And that ignores our shrinking demand for oil, as we expand out natural gas production.
The KXL pipeline would have done -zero- to affect the supply or demand for oil in the US.
closing down Gitmo and trying to get Jihadis onto American soil so that ACLU lawyers can bail them out
The constitution applies to them just as much as it does American citizens. it applies to all persons subject to the authority of the United States Government, citizen or not, enemy combatant or not. Indefinite detainment without trial or charge is very much illegal and unconstitutional. as is the continued detainment of people classed as nonthreats (and in some cased mistaken identities) and cleared for release several months ago....but that's another story.
for the ones who actually are bad guys (and not just swept up because paid informants, whom we know never ever lie or give false information in order to get an enemy in trouble, named them) a quick trial followed by a slow hanging or life in prison isn't something im opposed to.
but you do still need to fulfill the constitution's requirements that theoretically keep the exercise of governmental power over persons in check.
though, btw, you also apparently missed how he's in fact totally failed to close gitmo, going on 8 years now, and not even begun to take steps to do so.
Basically your entire post is a pile of BS that stands in total contrast to actual facts.
Which is pretty much par for the course.
they only barely won this last round.
they wont be there much longer.
thank god.
and then once they're gone, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
and peace might stand a chance again.
and that just makes it ok to just keep doing it?
You are seriously in need an education in history.
When you're so extremist you even make Bibi take a step back and say "whoa, that's going too far"....
considering your comment history, the blinders you wear must be ginormous to create such a lack of self awareness.
You would do well to compare the historical population trends of the souther compared to the rest of the nation before and after the invention and widespread adoption of Air Conditioning.
Hint: there's a reason slave labor was essential to the South's existence for the longest time.
in the time Before AC it was even more sparsely populated than now, had very few large cities, and most migration was away.
in the time After AC it experienced a population boom, the growth of many major cities, and migration completely reversed.
and this applies to the entire Sunbelt, from Arizona to Florida, not just the South.