Although 62% of Apple's revenue currently comes from the iPhone, when I look at the graphs, you're right, it does look like the Macintosh is increasing, not shrinking, in revenue:
http://static1.businessinsider...
Surprising-- from the gabble here on/. I would have thought the Mac was dying, but from the numbers, apparently not.
Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.
I want to point out that this is a hypothesis frequently used to justify inflation, but
Like almost everything, saying "X is bad" does not mean "the opposite extreme must therefore be good."
Most things, in economics and in life in general, involve a trade-off. Saying "deflation is bad" should not be used to imply "inflation is good":
Medio tutissimus ibis.
in fact there is little evidence to support it. There just haven't been many periods of deflation to really develop an empirical understanding of how people will react, so all we have is guess work. And somehow the guesswork always leans to the side that people wanted it to.
This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it.
I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy,
Nope. Money is the medium of exchange.
and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules.
Of course. The fact that money is not "like any other good in the economy" does not exempt it from supply and demand.
The rest of your argument fails because you apparently think "money is just like any other good in the economy" and thus a liquidity crisis is no big deal. A liquidity crisis actually is a big deal.
There's a quote I like: "Money, to a society, plays the same role that blood does to an organism. When it fails to circulate, the organism dies."
But who is the totalitarian government? China or the United States?
China.
Being that the world is recovering for a wide spread ransom ware attack caused from an long time "unpatched flaw" used by the United States National Security Agency. It would make sense for a government such as China to try to protect its data with its own "security measures".
That is indeed sensible, but it is unrelated to totalitarianism. The fact is that China is a totalitarian system.
Flipping your bitcoins from wallet to wallet doesn't increase their value. Your bitcoins value does not change when they change wallets.
Actually buying goods and services with bitcoins will (very slightly) cause inflation (since inflation rate is proportional to the velocity of money, and not just the money supply. When you buy things, instead of hoarding your bitcoins, you increase the average velocity of money.). But not significantly, unless your bitcoin purchases are a non-negligible portion of the currency supply.
i give you B- for economics. Republic of China had two decades of economic growth while having a deliberately set deflationary monetary policy.
Republic of China-- you mean Taiwan?
Taiwan's economics are not measured in Taiwanese dollars. The inflation deflation rate of Taiwainese dollars is irrelevant, since that's not the currency in which they do their foreign trade.
Deflation and Inflation are not a bad thing on their own.
Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.
Deflation is a bad feedback cycle.
If their rate is in balanced with the rest of the economy it isn't that big of a deal.
Deflation can be "balanced" with the rest of the economy if the rest of the economy is crashing. I suppose in that case you could say that the "not good" part should be attributed to some other part of the economy, not to the deflation itself, but, no, it's not good. In more general terms, tas currency increasing in value with respect to the things that can be purchased, there really isn't any time at which it is good.
Wow. In general, I am sympathetic to the goals (although not always the rhetoric) of "social justice warriors"-- social justice is, in fact, something we should strive for, and I'm in favor of that part of the pledge of allegiance saying "with liberty and justice for all" as a goal that we should aim for, even if somethings we fall short of the mark.
But this article is just wacky. “many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues."
No, actually most of these just aren't "scientific issues". Scientists, of course, can and even should have opinions on these subjects, but, really, these aren't scientific issues-- these are social issues.
If these issues were left out of the march for science, there's a good reason: they didn't belong there. They are issues needing a consensus by society as a whole.
Sweden have an embassy in London. Why would they not send a couple of their people up the road and interview him?
Did you read the article? They could and they did. The Ecuadorian's conditions for the interview were that all the questions had to be submitted beforehand, in writing, in Spanish, that they would vet the questions, and that there would be no follow-up questions.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, Mr. Coward.
As far as I've seen, leaks from Snowden showed that the NSA had tools to intercept conversations and emails, including hacking into networks and computers, and did so in order to do what we used to call "wiretapping", but I don't recall seeing suggestions that they "tamper with information of elected individuals, fabricate information, and outright lie."
Still a sham...To extradite him to the US, nothing more
To the contrary. At the time that he jumped bail on his promis to appear in Sweden for questioning, there really was no threat to extradite him to the U.S.. The Obama administration was vigorously prosecuting Americans who leaked U.S. secrets, but it had no apparent intent of going into dubious legal territory of trying to prosecute a foreigner who assisted publication of secrets he didn't leak himself. At the time, the threat to extradite him from Sweden to the U.S. was all in his mind. (And in any case, if the US had wanted him, it would have been just as hard, or just as easy, to extradite him from Sweden as from the UK.)
But by fleeing his bond and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, he allowed a new presidential administration to come to power in the U.S., and now there really is a credible threat, since this administration has no problem with dubious legal territory.
According to the summary, "The median time it took for a vehicle to go from 0 to 60 miles per hour was halved, from almost 14 seconds to seven," so in this case more HP does mean faster, or at least, means faster to reach cruising speed.
I like the "more efficient" part. I'm driving a car that routinely gets over 40 miles per gallon. Back in the '70s I drove an old (60s vintage) Volkswagen Beetle that used to impress people with its great gas mileage: 26 miles per gallon. What I drive now is bigger, more comfortable, safer, faster, and in short better in every possible way, and still gets almost twice the mileage.
Thank you for noticing that the environmentalists are intelligent scientists, rather than partisan fools.
I don't know that "environmentalists" per se are always "intelligent scientists". But it does happen that in this particular phase of the political see-saw, the people embracing the "environmental movement" are the one quoting real science, and the anti-environmentalism movement the ones trying to muddy the waters to score political points.
Likely as not the see-saw will tip in another few decades.
(I'm assuming that the word "environmentalist" as you use it means the commonly used meaning, and not "biologists who study the environment and ecology of the Earth/")
Wikipedia is not a source of truth. Dear God, what has the world come to when people seriously refer to wiki as a source in a political debate and really don't see anything wrong with that.
It's not a "source of truth," but the nice thing about Wikipedia is that the articles are usually is backed up by citations.
It's a good place to start if you want to find links to the actual science, and then form your own opinions.
You are confused by the particulates from ash in industrial exhaust. They were and are a major problem able to cause global dimming, which THEN causes an ice age by blocking heat and light from reaching the surface. Same reason nuclear war does it - ash IS particulate matter.
Particulates, partly, but mostly this is sulfate aerosols. They're highly reflective. You can see the temperature effect by looking at global temperature after major volcanic eruptions (which can blast a large amount of sulfates into the stratosphere).
A side effect of the move to low-sulfur coal (to reduce pollution and acid rain) was a reduction in sulfate aerosols. The atmosphere really cleared up in the 70s.
Since you have now cut-and-paste reposted this twice already in the same thread. I'm getting tired of reposting my reply, so this time I will just repost the links
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
I am old enough to remember the 70s. There was no controversy over the greenhouse effect then. It was well understood (having already been known for most of a century), and nobody doubted that if we added greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the temperature would warm according to theory. This was most evident in astronomy classes, where the greenhouse effect was taught usually with a textbook that concluded with a paragraph saying "by burning fossil fuels we are adding carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere, and if we burn enough fossil fuels, this effect may be large enough to measure by the late 20th century." (Which is what my astronomy text said.)
There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance.
No, there wasn't. There was the occasional pop science article, almost always ending with a question mark. Betteridge's law of headlines applied.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
So the northern peninsula they talk about must be either Anvers Island (wich would be north west, obviously) or one of the very small peninsulas at the "upper edge of the map" which non nitpicking people call: north.
There is one place called "the Antarctic Peninsula", which is the one referred to. It's clearly evident on any map of Antarctica. The journalist writing the article called it "north," which is correct.-- it is the northernmost extension of Antarctica.
Sorry, but while solar flares are indeed physically big, they won't "end life on the planet".
They affect electric grids by compressing the Earth's magnetic field, creating an induced voltage. That can play havoc with long conductors, like electric transmission lines, but doesn't really affect the biosphere.
Coronal mass ejections (the stuff ejected toward Earth by "solar flares") hit the Earth routinely-- when they do, they create pretty auroral displays. A CME has a density typically about 10 ions per cubic centimeter. A really big one might spike up to 40 ions per cubic centimeter. For comparison, there are about 10^20 nitrogen molecules in a cubic centimeter of sea-level air.
Slashdot Mirror
Surprising-- from the gabble here on /. I would have thought the Mac was dying, but from the numbers, apparently not.
Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.
I want to point out that this is a hypothesis frequently used to justify inflation, but
Like almost everything, saying "X is bad" does not mean "the opposite extreme must therefore be good."
Most things, in economics and in life in general, involve a trade-off. Saying "deflation is bad" should not be used to imply "inflation is good":
Medio tutissimus ibis.
in fact there is little evidence to support it. There just haven't been many periods of deflation to really develop an empirical understanding of how people will react, so all we have is guess work. And somehow the guesswork always leans to the side that people wanted it to.
This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it.
I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy,
Nope. Money is the medium of exchange.
and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules.
Of course. The fact that money is not "like any other good in the economy" does not exempt it from supply and demand.
The rest of your argument fails because you apparently think "money is just like any other good in the economy" and thus a liquidity crisis is no big deal. A liquidity crisis actually is a big deal.
There's a quote I like: "Money, to a society, plays the same role that blood does to an organism. When it fails to circulate, the organism dies."
But who is the totalitarian government? China or the United States?
China.
Being that the world is recovering for a wide spread ransom ware attack caused from an long time "unpatched flaw" used by the United States National Security Agency. It would make sense for a government such as China to try to protect its data with its own "security measures".
That is indeed sensible, but it is unrelated to totalitarianism. The fact is that China is a totalitarian system.
I have to remind you that "totalitarianism" is not a synonym for "a government I don't like", nor even "a government that does despicable things."
It is "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
The US does not (yet) assert total control over its citizens, although some political factions might like to go in that direction.
Flipping your bitcoins from wallet to wallet doesn't increase their value. Your bitcoins value does not change when they change wallets.
Actually buying goods and services with bitcoins will (very slightly) cause inflation (since inflation rate is proportional to the velocity of money, and not just the money supply. When you buy things, instead of hoarding your bitcoins, you increase the average velocity of money.). But not significantly, unless your bitcoin purchases are a non-negligible portion of the currency supply.
i give you B- for economics. Republic of China had two decades of economic growth while having a deliberately set deflationary monetary policy.
Republic of China-- you mean Taiwan?
Taiwan's economics are not measured in Taiwanese dollars. The inflation deflation rate of Taiwainese dollars is irrelevant, since that's not the currency in which they do their foreign trade.
Deflation and Inflation are not a bad thing on their own.
Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.
Deflation is a bad feedback cycle.
If their rate is in balanced with the rest of the economy it isn't that big of a deal.
Deflation can be "balanced" with the rest of the economy if the rest of the economy is crashing. I suppose in that case you could say that the "not good" part should be attributed to some other part of the economy, not to the deflation itself, but, no, it's not good. In more general terms, tas currency increasing in value with respect to the things that can be purchased, there really isn't any time at which it is good.
Wow. In general, I am sympathetic to the goals (although not always the rhetoric) of "social justice warriors"-- social justice is, in fact, something we should strive for, and I'm in favor of that part of the pledge of allegiance saying "with liberty and justice for all" as a goal that we should aim for, even if somethings we fall short of the mark.
But this article is just wacky. “many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues."
No, actually most of these just aren't "scientific issues". Scientists, of course, can and even should have opinions on these subjects, but, really, these aren't scientific issues-- these are social issues.
If these issues were left out of the march for science, there's a good reason: they didn't belong there. They are issues needing a consensus by society as a whole.
Sweden have an embassy in London. Why would they not send a couple of their people up the road and interview him?
Did you read the article? They could and they did. The Ecuadorian's conditions for the interview were that all the questions had to be submitted beforehand, in writing, in Spanish, that they would vet the questions, and that there would be no follow-up questions.
As far as I've seen, leaks from Snowden showed that the NSA had tools to intercept conversations and emails, including hacking into networks and computers, and did so in order to do what we used to call "wiretapping", but I don't recall seeing suggestions that they "tamper with information of elected individuals, fabricate information, and outright lie."
Citation needed.
Still a sham ...To extradite him to the US, nothing more
To the contrary. At the time that he jumped bail on his promis to appear in Sweden for questioning, there really was no threat to extradite him to the U.S.. The Obama administration was vigorously prosecuting Americans who leaked U.S. secrets, but it had no apparent intent of going into dubious legal territory of trying to prosecute a foreigner who assisted publication of secrets he didn't leak himself. At the time, the threat to extradite him from Sweden to the U.S. was all in his mind. (And in any case, if the US had wanted him, it would have been just as hard, or just as easy, to extradite him from Sweden as from the UK.)
But by fleeing his bond and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, he allowed a new presidential administration to come to power in the U.S., and now there really is a credible threat, since this administration has no problem with dubious legal territory.
Sorry, what about a Volkswagen Beetle impresses people?
At the time, the gas mileage. Pretty much nothing else.
Oh, and the fact that they floated. Although I personally never verified that fact.
There is a turbo-charged one on Street Outlaws that is pretty cool but it can't keep up to the other beasts on that show.
This was way before anybody put turbochargers onto street cars.
I like the "more efficient" part. I'm driving a car that routinely gets over 40 miles per gallon. Back in the '70s I drove an old (60s vintage) Volkswagen Beetle that used to impress people with its great gas mileage: 26 miles per gallon. What I drive now is bigger, more comfortable, safer, faster, and in short better in every possible way, and still gets almost twice the mileage.
Where's the control group of earths (and suns, and moons) they did the tests with?
Every body with an atmosphere in solar system.
Thank you for noticing that the environmentalists are intelligent scientists, rather than partisan fools.
I don't know that "environmentalists" per se are always "intelligent scientists". But it does happen that in this particular phase of the political see-saw, the people embracing the "environmental movement" are the one quoting real science, and the anti-environmentalism movement the ones trying to muddy the waters to score political points.
Likely as not the see-saw will tip in another few decades.
(I'm assuming that the word "environmentalist" as you use it means the commonly used meaning, and not "biologists who study the environment and ecology of the Earth/")
Wikipedia is not a source of truth. Dear God, what has the world come to when people seriously refer to wiki as a source in a political debate and really don't see anything wrong with that.
It's not a "source of truth," but the nice thing about Wikipedia is that the articles are usually is backed up by citations.
It's a good place to start if you want to find links to the actual science, and then form your own opinions.
(I am going to make the phrase "citation needed" my motto. https://xkcd.com/285/)
You are confused by the particulates from ash in industrial exhaust. They were and are a major problem able to cause global dimming, which THEN causes an ice age by blocking heat and light from reaching the surface. Same reason nuclear war does it - ash IS particulate matter.
Particulates, partly, but mostly this is sulfate aerosols. They're highly reflective. You can see the temperature effect by looking at global temperature after major volcanic eruptions (which can blast a large amount of sulfates into the stratosphere).
A side effect of the move to low-sulfur coal (to reduce pollution and acid rain) was a reduction in sulfate aerosols. The atmosphere really cleared up in the 70s.
Since you have now cut-and-paste reposted this twice already in the same thread. I'm getting tired of reposting my reply, so this time I will just repost the links
graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
https://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
I am old enough to remember the 70s. There was no controversy over the greenhouse effect then. It was well understood (having already been known for most of a century), and nobody doubted that if we added greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the temperature would warm according to theory. This was most evident in astronomy classes, where the greenhouse effect was taught usually with a textbook that concluded with a paragraph saying "by burning fossil fuels we are adding carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere, and if we burn enough fossil fuels, this effect may be large enough to measure by the late 20th century." (Which is what my astronomy text said.)
There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance.
No, there wasn't. There was the occasional pop science article, almost always ending with a question mark. Betteridge's law of headlines applied.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
So the northern peninsula they talk about must be either Anvers Island (wich would be north west, obviously) or one of the very small peninsulas at the "upper edge of the map" which non nitpicking people call: north.
There is one place called "the Antarctic Peninsula", which is the one referred to. It's clearly evident on any map of Antarctica. The journalist writing the article called it "north," which is correct.-- it is the northernmost extension of Antarctica.
Sorry, but while solar flares are indeed physically big, they won't "end life on the planet".
They affect electric grids by compressing the Earth's magnetic field, creating an induced voltage. That can play havoc with long conductors, like electric transmission lines, but doesn't really affect the biosphere.
Coronal mass ejections (the stuff ejected toward Earth by "solar flares") hit the Earth routinely-- when they do, they create pretty auroral displays. A CME has a density typically about 10 ions per cubic centimeter. A really big one might spike up to 40 ions per cubic centimeter. For comparison, there are about 10^20 nitrogen molecules in a cubic centimeter of sea-level air.