that variation in irradiance is plus or minus one tenth of one percent
Which is 1.3 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. That's almost the same as the current estimate of heating forcing from from elevated levels of CO2. The forcing from that level of solar variation apparently is estimated to be a tenth of the actual variation in irradiance.
I hate to keep harping on the same things, but the effect of solar variability has been analyzed in mind-numbing detail in the last few decades, and it just isn't there.
Two obvious problems with the assertion. First, decades aren't a very long span of time. We don't know how much solar variability there has been before we started reliably measuring it late last century. Second, there's still that matter of the ideological and institutional bias. There's a right conclusion to this phenomenon which requires solar output to be a minor contributor to global warming. If that conclusion is wrong, then it doesn't matter how much mind-numbing detail has gone into this.
Who the fuck are you to decide what is and is not moral? And on that basis how can you even begin to presume to judge what is and is not greed?
I'm khallow. Of course, that is sufficient to issue moral judgments from my point of view. That's how subjectivity works after all.
I don't have to validate my position to you.
True, you don't. And honestly, I think despite that lack of obligation, you did a satisfactory job of validating your position from my point of view.
My point however is that in this argument you can't win because the person issuing moral judgments and perhaps even redefining the meaning of greed to suit themselves is hermetically sealed. Their reasoning doesn't have to make sense to you. Of course, as a result none of the rest of us have to care either.
So, what you're now saying is that the little ice age is not due to the Maunder minimum, but you're hypothesizing that it might have been due to some other sunspot minimum for which we have only proxy data.
No, I'm saying that we have some evidence that the Little Ice Age (Wikipedia indicates this should be capitalized) was contemporary with unusually low solar output over a span of time including the Maunder minimum (up to the weaker Dalton minimum which included the Tambora eruption in 1815). That would be necessary for an actual cause and effect between reduced solar output and a cooler climate.
Further, sunspot minimums do appear to correlate with reduced solar output, so it is possible that there were a series of several such episodes over those centuries in question and that they caused the cooler climate of the Little Ice Age in the first place.
(1) proxy data on solar activity is somewhat harder to interpret
Than what? Sure, proxy data for solar output is much harder to interpret than direct observation. But nothing back then was directly observed. It's all proxies.
(2) nobody looking at the record of proxy reconstruction has been able to find a firm correlation to global climate (although there are some regional climate correlations),
Well, maybe they have and they're just choosing not to interpret it that way. I don't buy that our temperature proxies are good enough to determine the difference between regional and global climate once you get beyond the 19th century - especially given what I see as significant ideological and institutional biases towards exaggerating the effects of anthropogenic global warming. Downplaying global effects of solar output over the past millennium (especially during both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period) would be consistent with that.
(3) there still isn't any accepted mechanism connecting sunspot number to climate,
For the solar activity of the past couple of centuries, higher sunspot number corresponded to a slightly brighter and hotter Sun (the lower output of sunspots is countered by the brighter regions around the sunspots). Even if there is no other effect than to reduce solar output for a few decades to the level of solar output between sunspot cycles, that's still half a watt less per square meter which is about a third to half the heating thought to be contributed from carbon dioxide.
All of the scientists doing the actual studies of this sort say the effects seen are far too small to explain the current warming trend: see, for example Solanki et al. 2004 study of sunspot numbers over the past 11,000 years and climate: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... "we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", or the review of dozens of studies here: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
I couldn't help but notice that the study you linked to concludes that the Sun is at an exceptionally high level of activity compared to the past 11,400 years.
We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
I'm a lukewarmist, I believe there is some effect. But this is a huge factor to downplay.
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
Let me also note that apparently, it is possible to observe solar activity prior to direct observation by measuring carbon 14 in tree rings as a proxy. As a result, it is claimed that there were other periods of lowered solar activity from about 1000 AD through to the Maunder minimum.
For example, there were periods of alleged reduced solar activity between 1280 and 1350 and between 1460 and 1550. Notice how those periods (especially given the declines in solar activity prior to the start of the periods) correlate with the start of the cooling periods you mention above. And note how there were also elevated periods of solar activity corresponding to both the Medieval Warm Period and modern times with the highest solar activity of the past millennium corresponding to the first fifty years of the 20th century (which was the cutoff for the chart).
Unfortunately, this is THREE HUNDRED YEARS before the Maunder minimum. So it's really hard to think that the Maunder minimum caused the little ice age.
And three hundred years before anyone methodically observed sun spots. The Maunder minimum may have just been the latest in a string of such solar events.
No, you become a billionaire by giving yourself hundreds of millions of shares of stock.
No, it's not that easy. Someone has to be willing to buy those shares from you at a few dollars each. Else you're just dealing in imaginary play money.
Enough with the fucking moral judgements of people you don't know.
Then discuss a different subject. The label of "Greed" is inherently a moral judgment. And when you start talking about what it means, you naturally talk about everyone's moral judgments.
If a 24th century photon torpedo had even as much power as a 20th century nuke, then you could obliterate even the largest ships with a single hit, no matter how strong their 'shields' were.
I think the Enterprise has taken direct hits from nuclear weapons before in the original series (eg, the first episode with Romulans). Those shields are quite spanky.
Already addressed this in another comment. The only people calling white people evil are the people getting upset that anyone else values diversity. It's a straw man argument.
It's an argument based on the fact that there's handwringing here only over factors that concentrate so-called "whites" in one place. The author of the main story doesn't seem to care when other ethnic groups concentrate in one place.
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions:
A "best understanding" which once again, allows for the exaggeration of the effect of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Volcanic eruptions which may not have actually happened are easy things to invent when one needs to explain things in a certain convenient way. Confirmation bias is usually a subtle thing, but it need not always be.
Obviously there has to be a balance, but people left to their own devices without restrictions will just destroy themselves and the society they are part of.
The point here is that we are far beyond what is needed for a balance. And the US War on Drugs is an example of one way that we can destroy ourselves and our society while thinking we're doing the opposite.
Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black. If you're not going to defend land that is owned by your friends and neighbors, then you aren't going to defend public land either.
And of course, why should people you don't like be the ones cast out into the wilderness? That sounds more like psychopathic reasoning to me than your empty accusations about libertarians. I suggest here that maybe you don't want to be the living example of why libertarian belief systems exist in the first place. Just because someone has slightly different beliefs than you is no reason to exile or ostracize them. After all, it might be your turn next to be cast out when you don't fit in with the powers that be.
Telling government they have lots of people just means they think they got more of other people's money to spend. This is one of the objections to federal government (hey, they can take advantage of economies of scale for the entire nation! How's that national healthcare going for ya?)
OK, I see where you're going with this. There's probably some such effect in a more than order of magnitude increase in size going from New Hampshire to California. But there's also a huge variation in government outcome that has nothing to do with size.
Probably, but not for the reason you stated. New Hampshire is small, both in size and population. Smaller states have less land and less people to spend things on, both in things you need and things you don't need.
Sounds very comforting, but there are economies of scale to having lots of people. Most services are easier and cheaper to provide per capita in high population density environments.
The choice was between interpreting the law so it could fulfil its intended purpose
Lack of severability (that is, the law was intended to stand as a whole, not be reinterpreted piecemeal) was one such intent and that was disregarded by the Court.
When you have people with no stability, like say working for a few days, then trying to find another job, they spend most of their time trying to find a job rather than actually working and doing something productive.
Uber solves that problem by near eliminating the effort in finding short term work while you look for additional work. You work a job, switch over to Uber while you find a new job, and then you work the new job.
Worse yet, with this kind of stability, people can not even begin to image of buying a house, a car, and I doubt working day to day, you can even get an apartment.
You could always just start saving money. Self insuring against unemployment downtime solves a lot of these problems.
Pretending that their intent was to make life difficult for people over who live in a republican led state that didn't build an exchange is insanity...
That didn't happen. Nobody is claiming that these Supreme Court rulings were done to make things hard for average people or for certain states. Consequence != intent.
The DOJ is where the diluted power concentrates, through their selected agreed upon puppet
You are claiming much more than that. You are claiming that one of many supposed puppet masters is greater than a puppet with very considerable power. I don't buy it and I've already explained why.
Let's try this analogy. The US President is elected by the US populace. In a more tangible way than above, the US President is the puppet of the electorate (we have very concrete means by which the electorate controls who is president). But that doesn't make them less powerful than an average voter.
And frankly, I wouldn't agree with the claim that the Attorney General is less powerful than the supposed puppet masters. The AG's power is a lot more concrete and doesn't depend on having money, which can be taken, or connections, which can be severed.
You simply refuse to acknowledge facts. I fully understand your position. You need to believe what you do. It's okay, it's your security blanket...
Once again, it's amazing the level of projection that shows up in Slashdot discussions. You've just spent the last twenty or so posts in this thread insulting people and making mostly vacuous and empty assertions, now I get accused of being the one who "simply" (that simplistic reasoning yet again) refuses to acknowledge facts which are not facts. It's not my belief system which is on full display here.
Slashdot Mirror
Voters would rather have a hypocrite in office who does what they want
And what they actually get is someone who tells them what they want to hear while never resolving the issues that keep the voter coming back for more.
The Republicans here don't under stand compromise; just look at how they've spent the past 8 years chanting "NO!".
What makes you think that? Instead, it appears to me that they perceive no advantage to compromise.
I have to agree for different reasons. For example, I see no upside to compromising on our basic freedoms.
that variation in irradiance is plus or minus one tenth of one percent
Which is 1.3 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. That's almost the same as the current estimate of heating forcing from from elevated levels of CO2. The forcing from that level of solar variation apparently is estimated to be a tenth of the actual variation in irradiance.
I hate to keep harping on the same things, but the effect of solar variability has been analyzed in mind-numbing detail in the last few decades, and it just isn't there.
Two obvious problems with the assertion. First, decades aren't a very long span of time. We don't know how much solar variability there has been before we started reliably measuring it late last century. Second, there's still that matter of the ideological and institutional bias. There's a right conclusion to this phenomenon which requires solar output to be a minor contributor to global warming. If that conclusion is wrong, then it doesn't matter how much mind-numbing detail has gone into this.
Who the fuck are you to decide what is and is not moral? And on that basis how can you even begin to presume to judge what is and is not greed?
I'm khallow. Of course, that is sufficient to issue moral judgments from my point of view. That's how subjectivity works after all.
I don't have to validate my position to you.
True, you don't. And honestly, I think despite that lack of obligation, you did a satisfactory job of validating your position from my point of view.
My point however is that in this argument you can't win because the person issuing moral judgments and perhaps even redefining the meaning of greed to suit themselves is hermetically sealed. Their reasoning doesn't have to make sense to you. Of course, as a result none of the rest of us have to care either.
So, what you're now saying is that the little ice age is not due to the Maunder minimum, but you're hypothesizing that it might have been due to some other sunspot minimum for which we have only proxy data.
No, I'm saying that we have some evidence that the Little Ice Age (Wikipedia indicates this should be capitalized) was contemporary with unusually low solar output over a span of time including the Maunder minimum (up to the weaker Dalton minimum which included the Tambora eruption in 1815). That would be necessary for an actual cause and effect between reduced solar output and a cooler climate.
Further, sunspot minimums do appear to correlate with reduced solar output, so it is possible that there were a series of several such episodes over those centuries in question and that they caused the cooler climate of the Little Ice Age in the first place.
(1) proxy data on solar activity is somewhat harder to interpret
Than what? Sure, proxy data for solar output is much harder to interpret than direct observation. But nothing back then was directly observed. It's all proxies.
(2) nobody looking at the record of proxy reconstruction has been able to find a firm correlation to global climate (although there are some regional climate correlations),
Well, maybe they have and they're just choosing not to interpret it that way. I don't buy that our temperature proxies are good enough to determine the difference between regional and global climate once you get beyond the 19th century - especially given what I see as significant ideological and institutional biases towards exaggerating the effects of anthropogenic global warming. Downplaying global effects of solar output over the past millennium (especially during both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period) would be consistent with that.
(3) there still isn't any accepted mechanism connecting sunspot number to climate,
For the solar activity of the past couple of centuries, higher sunspot number corresponded to a slightly brighter and hotter Sun (the lower output of sunspots is countered by the brighter regions around the sunspots). Even if there is no other effect than to reduce solar output for a few decades to the level of solar output between sunspot cycles, that's still half a watt less per square meter which is about a third to half the heating thought to be contributed from carbon dioxide.
All of the scientists doing the actual studies of this sort say the effects seen are far too small to explain the current warming trend: see, for example Solanki et al. 2004 study of sunspot numbers over the past 11,000 years and climate: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... "we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", or the review of dozens of studies here: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
I couldn't help but notice that the study you linked to concludes that the Sun is at an exceptionally high level of activity compared to the past 11,400 years.
We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
I'm a lukewarmist, I believe there is some effect. But this is a huge factor to downplay.
Like ... derivitives fantasy?
Someone is willing to give you money for that. That makes it a cut above imaginary money. And dark pools are markets not securities.
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
Let me also note that apparently, it is possible to observe solar activity prior to direct observation by measuring carbon 14 in tree rings as a proxy. As a result, it is claimed that there were other periods of lowered solar activity from about 1000 AD through to the Maunder minimum.
For example, there were periods of alleged reduced solar activity between 1280 and 1350 and between 1460 and 1550. Notice how those periods (especially given the declines in solar activity prior to the start of the periods) correlate with the start of the cooling periods you mention above. And note how there were also elevated periods of solar activity corresponding to both the Medieval Warm Period and modern times with the highest solar activity of the past millennium corresponding to the first fifty years of the 20th century (which was the cutoff for the chart).
Unfortunately, this is THREE HUNDRED YEARS before the Maunder minimum. So it's really hard to think that the Maunder minimum caused the little ice age.
And three hundred years before anyone methodically observed sun spots. The Maunder minimum may have just been the latest in a string of such solar events.
No, you become a billionaire by giving yourself hundreds of millions of shares of stock.
No, it's not that easy. Someone has to be willing to buy those shares from you at a few dollars each. Else you're just dealing in imaginary play money.
Please explain, using the status concept, people who buy stolen artwork that can never be shown lest they lose it.
What is there to explain?
Enough with the fucking moral judgements of people you don't know.
Then discuss a different subject. The label of "Greed" is inherently a moral judgment. And when you start talking about what it means, you naturally talk about everyone's moral judgments.
If a 24th century photon torpedo had even as much power as a 20th century nuke, then you could obliterate even the largest ships with a single hit, no matter how strong their 'shields' were.
I think the Enterprise has taken direct hits from nuclear weapons before in the original series (eg, the first episode with Romulans). Those shields are quite spanky.
Already addressed this in another comment. The only people calling white people evil are the people getting upset that anyone else values diversity. It's a straw man argument.
It's an argument based on the fact that there's handwringing here only over factors that concentrate so-called "whites" in one place. The author of the main story doesn't seem to care when other ethnic groups concentrate in one place.
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions:
A "best understanding" which once again, allows for the exaggeration of the effect of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Volcanic eruptions which may not have actually happened are easy things to invent when one needs to explain things in a certain convenient way. Confirmation bias is usually a subtle thing, but it need not always be.
Obviously there has to be a balance, but people left to their own devices without restrictions will just destroy themselves and the society they are part of.
The point here is that we are far beyond what is needed for a balance. And the US War on Drugs is an example of one way that we can destroy ourselves and our society while thinking we're doing the opposite.
Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black. If you're not going to defend land that is owned by your friends and neighbors, then you aren't going to defend public land either.
And of course, why should people you don't like be the ones cast out into the wilderness? That sounds more like psychopathic reasoning to me than your empty accusations about libertarians. I suggest here that maybe you don't want to be the living example of why libertarian belief systems exist in the first place. Just because someone has slightly different beliefs than you is no reason to exile or ostracize them. After all, it might be your turn next to be cast out when you don't fit in with the powers that be.
I imagine they'll find that it is even more profitable than the current situation.
Telling government they have lots of people just means they think they got more of other people's money to spend. This is one of the objections to federal government (hey, they can take advantage of economies of scale for the entire nation! How's that national healthcare going for ya?)
OK, I see where you're going with this. There's probably some such effect in a more than order of magnitude increase in size going from New Hampshire to California. But there's also a huge variation in government outcome that has nothing to do with size.
Probably, but not for the reason you stated. New Hampshire is small, both in size and population. Smaller states have less land and less people to spend things on, both in things you need and things you don't need.
Sounds very comforting, but there are economies of scale to having lots of people. Most services are easier and cheaper to provide per capita in high population density environments.
The choice was between interpreting the law so it could fulfil its intended purpose
Lack of severability (that is, the law was intended to stand as a whole, not be reinterpreted piecemeal) was one such intent and that was disregarded by the Court.
But still, how does the state pay for things, with low income tax and no sales tax?
Probably by spending less. When you don't dump piles of money on things you don't need, then you can more easily pay for the things you do need.
When you have people with no stability, like say working for a few days, then trying to find another job, they spend most of their time trying to find a job rather than actually working and doing something productive.
Uber solves that problem by near eliminating the effort in finding short term work while you look for additional work. You work a job, switch over to Uber while you find a new job, and then you work the new job.
Worse yet, with this kind of stability, people can not even begin to image of buying a house, a car, and I doubt working day to day, you can even get an apartment.
You could always just start saving money. Self insuring against unemployment downtime solves a lot of these problems.
I'll beseech Eris on your behalf for an anti-blessing to counter the blessing. No charge.
Pretending that their intent was to make life difficult for people over who live in a republican led state that didn't build an exchange is insanity...
That didn't happen. Nobody is claiming that these Supreme Court rulings were done to make things hard for average people or for certain states. Consequence != intent.
The DOJ is where the diluted power concentrates, through their selected agreed upon puppet
You are claiming much more than that. You are claiming that one of many supposed puppet masters is greater than a puppet with very considerable power. I don't buy it and I've already explained why.
Let's try this analogy. The US President is elected by the US populace. In a more tangible way than above, the US President is the puppet of the electorate (we have very concrete means by which the electorate controls who is president). But that doesn't make them less powerful than an average voter.
And frankly, I wouldn't agree with the claim that the Attorney General is less powerful than the supposed puppet masters. The AG's power is a lot more concrete and doesn't depend on having money, which can be taken, or connections, which can be severed.
You simply refuse to acknowledge facts. I fully understand your position. You need to believe what you do. It's okay, it's your security blanket...
Once again, it's amazing the level of projection that shows up in Slashdot discussions. You've just spent the last twenty or so posts in this thread insulting people and making mostly vacuous and empty assertions, now I get accused of being the one who "simply" (that simplistic reasoning yet again) refuses to acknowledge facts which are not facts. It's not my belief system which is on full display here.