What is this w32.SillyFDC.BDJ contained in the ZIP file? Is it there by accident? Did you post in ignorance of a site distributing a worm or are you the author?
"Compared to Physics of almost any kind, "climate science" is a soft and politicized science. Since it allows no experiments,"
I just can't let this lie. I am strongly in the sceptic camp. That being said, to claim that there is no science, including experimental science, in climate research is to expose yourself as a complete ignoramus. There have been extensive experimental evaluations of the absorption of EMR by trace gases in the atmosphere (see Hottell, Leckner). There is very detailed science, including experimentation, in determining the 'standard atmosphere', without which air travel would be considerably more dangerous. Indeed, every facet of this particular area of applied science is deeply rooted in pure science. Mann et. al. are (in my opinion) guilty of bad record keeping. The journals that published the original hockey stick are guilty of not using the right peers for review. Hansen et. al. are guilty of reinventing the wheel when it comes to radiant heat transfer methods. But all of them are better scientists than most of the people who post here. A bit thin skinned and prone to tantrums, but then, so am I.
Normally, I don't reply to such things, particularly when there is such venom involved. It indicates a closed mind and a lack of tolerance, but anyway, here goes. Copied and pasted from the PDF of the Wegman report I have on my computer (and that I re-read prior to my first posting).
Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and
the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they
were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to
do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a
calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not
fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.
However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the
narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by
someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr.
Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant
interactions with mainstream statisticians.
For one (there are others) of the statutes under which Steve McIntyre must work, see this site http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/mining.asp, also do some reading on national instrument 43-101.
I can't believe you still labour under the impression that all of the data has been released into the public domain.
This was indeed the first release of this information.
Rage is not conducive to clear thinking. It shows in this series of posts of yours, all of which exude a strong dollop of rage.
Point 6, Given that this article is about the FIRST, RELUCTANT, release of some of the very data that Mann used in constructing the hockey stick, I find it a bit rich that you are willing to claim that the raw data is all available The temperature data is available, but the 'hidden decline' tree ring data . . . Not so much
Point 7, McIntyre's site is quite well known for being especially hard on skeptics who post idiotic comments. Of course, Steve is not advocating a point of view that requires the expenditure of billions of dollars. He is just asking for some discipline in the work being done. In his real job, he is required to audit data under rules that would make climate scientists crap. In mining you have to publish your data (drill records) as soon as practicable. Competition?? Tough. Don't show your raw numbers and interpretation methods?? Go to jail. McIntyre audits a lot of data other than climate scientists data. Under rules that people like Jones and Mann would whine miserably about.
Maybe you might want to take off your own blinders and find a sight in addition to realclimate for information.
The problem that the climate scientists have created for themselves is that they are hiding the data from everyone. Up until a few months ago, these requests were relatively rare. Some of the requesting parties actually have fairly strong credentials. Steve McIntyre may be hated by the folk at realclimate, but he is an IPCC reviewer. To stonewall him is a little different than refusing to provide it to Jenny McCarthy.
I'll probably get flamebait or troll for this too, but this has always been the danger of the over-advocacy of climate change. Climate science is not even close to "settled". Nor is evolution, nor is physics. Well established and able to make verifiable predictions yes. Settled. No. The direct result of making the absurd claim that some cutting edge field of science is settled is this. Some complete moron then says "see, global warming wasn't settled, so evolution is bunk too" I've seen similar idiotic comments about plate tectonics as well. A number of years ago (far enough back it hasn't been cached), I wrote here that as scientists, we had better be right about climate change. Now we reap what we have sown. If it annoys you that idiots make claims like "global warming wasn't settled, so how can you be sure about evolution", look to the strident supporters of the cause. They (I'm talking about realclimate etc., here) are as responsible as Beck. By hammering any and all dissent without any concern as to the validity of the claims, they have made this type of comment inevitable. We will be seeing much more of it and we have only ourselves to blame.
Climate science is not the only field that must calculate radiant heat loss in the atmosphere. If you back calculate the required emissivity to obtain the logarithmic increase in heat capture used in the climate models (the F = 5.35 ln [ CO2 ] ) you come up with radiant heat absorption that is not seen in other systems where the radiant heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. It is a fundamental premise in science that the laws apply no matter the system. As such, the climate model for absorption of CO2 should give the same results as other models in other fields that calculate radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere (models that have been used and improved continuously for decades before climate scientists started thinking about things). They do not, hence one must discard the above equation as overestimating the impact of CO2. The climate scientists reinvented the wheel when it came to radiant heat loss in the atmosphere. They got it very close, but there is a divergence. It occurs at about 50 ppm CO2. At about 200 ppm CO2 there will no longer be radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere. That is, at about 200 ppm, the absorption is maximized. I've seen arguments about "it's not a marker, it's a blanket" etc. The levels of CO2 up to 800 ppm atmospheric are within the limits of data for other fields (see Leckner and Hottel for methods). Put simply, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already. Adding more will not impact climate. Yes, this is my area of expertise. Most texts on heat transfer provide the method for calculating this. If you are beyond 2nd year physics and math, you will be able to prove this for yourself.
Here is an hypothesis:
In the early 1980's, people who had made claims about the massive impacts of SO2 on the earth (anybody remember acid rain) realized that SO2 had made another impact. Not only did it cause acid rain, but it cooled the earth. Then came Pinatubo. OMG! What have we done!
Now it was time to come up with a scape goat for the impending impact on climate that was certain to occur with a world wide reduction in SO2. How about CO2? Hard to prove, impossible to eliminate, and 'everyone knows that CO2 is a green house gas'. Tin foil hat time? Maybe. Of course, the fact that CO2's impact on radiant heat loss is, and always has been, maximized, may have something to do with all of this. And really. deltaF=5.35lnC/Cnought? Isn't that just a little too idiotically simple?
>>Why? Because the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at saturation. Doesn't really matter >>how much you blacken the windows in a house - once they hit "black" you're not adding any more to >>the effect. Same with CO2 absorption and re-emission of specific infrared wavelengths - it's >>already at saturation, and adding any more CO2 will have no effect.
>You are saying that because of bad analogies crafted by some AGW as a religion types, name the >greenhouse analogy, to sway a bunch of brain-damaged morons. In reality the effect is more like an >insulating blanket than a window, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the thicker the blanket is as >the CO2 is heavier than air and stays closer to the ground. As CO2 increases the saturation point >increase in elevation, and the warmer the air temperatures at the ground will be on an average.
No: The OP is correct. It is NOT like a blanket. It is like a marker. Also, CO2 concentration measured in PPM is very consistent throughout the atmosphere. Your thing about "saturation point increasing in elevation" is also off.
The total radiant heat loss from surface to space is determined by the product of concentration and distance. Once the absorbance reaches the maximum (atmospherically, this is somewhere between 50 to 100 ppm) further increases in CO2 concentrations have NO impact on radiant heat loss. The climate calculations are a special, though in no way unusual, case of a very common type of calculation. In ALL other cases, this "point of saturation" thing is already accounted for. You are double counting the impact of CO2 if you add this in.
What you are roughly saying is that a slice of atmosphere will radiate heat at the same rate as the surface of the ground. That is, that a slice of atmosphere has the same heat capacity as the surface of the ground. Which it obviously does not. Air being about 2,000 times less dense than ground, 1 meter of ground will have as much heat as 2,000 meters of atmosphere at the ground. A whole lot more than that if you consider dropping pressure with altitude.
Some idiot has been given mod points. I've remodded 3 posts now. I see someone else is jumping in to help too. I generally don't get too upset when I get the occasional inexplicable flamebait or troll mod. It is a QTIP moment. (Quit Taking It Personally). Usually says more about the moderator than me.
"Actually, a BASIC compiler of some kind would be a wonderful thing to have in gcc."
An interesting thing. I recall in 1987 (or earlier?) that Borland had a basic compiler, turbo-basic. Was way better than the basic that came with MS-Dos. Borland's best piece of software IMHO was Quatro Pro. The old dos version is STILL better than Excell at graphs.
"What is the motivation of this person to post this kind of post these days. I don't get it, anyone care to explain?"
Obviously you haven't asked for help on the mailing lists or usenet with this OS. Personally, I thought his post was fairly
restrained. I dumped FreeBSD after 6 years a couple of months back. A straight forward security update and suddenly I don't have
a working X, most of my programs core dump and I can't get at anything. And the help on the mailing lists and usenet? X isn't part of the OS. You shouldn't run programs (i.e. Xorg) that aren't supported.
Run, don't walk
from FreeBSD. It is a rotting hulk of a once proud thing and should be allowed to die in dignity.
"Note: I work for the CRTC. They are not proposing influencing the content itself but rather the distribution."
In either case, the nanny state is telling me what I can and cannot watch. Whether it is the content,
that is direct cesorship, or the distribution, that is the ability to see what I want without "help" from the
government (that is you), it is STILL censorship. It is, like all cancon laws, tarted up censorship.
The push to go nuclear was nearly dead until Jim Hansen started agitating about global warming.
Since then, as this article shows, the nuclear industry has revived. The mercury industry has
also revived (thanks to compact fluorescents) and the lead industry has revived (thanks to
electric cars). Now if we could only do something to promote asbestos and smoking, the
environmental gains from the global warming industry would be complete.
I stand corrected. I do recall reading (I think on that same USGS site) that the rise due to Antarctic melting would be substantially mitigated by the fact that a large amount of the ice is floating or near to floating. In the absence of a reference however, I will defer to your number for the time being. In either case, the Maldives will be flooded and under 7 to 70 meters of water in the very near future . . . Geologically speaking of course.
>> Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum.
> 7 metres is not the maximum. It may be unlikely, but the Antarctic ice *could* melt eventually (since it has in the distant past).
Sorry, should have been specific. Seven meters is the maximum. It will occur again when the Greenland AND Antarctic ice sheets melt again. Greenland was ice free about 100,000 years ago. The antarctic has not been for at least 500,000 years, so I'm not too worried.
Your question is simple, but the answer is not. Sea levels have risen 120 meters during this interglacial warming period. Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum. The fact that these islands exist above current sea levels is proof that the sea levels have been higher than they are now. These islands are basically relic coral reefs and hence formed under water.
I found both State of Fear and Timeline to be excellent reads. Some may vehemently disagree with State of Fear as it is as much a political book as a science book, but Timeline was definitely science related. Jurassic Park too for that matter. All three were definitely better than the excruciatingly endless "the road".
This may be a dupe comment. I'm at work and shouldn't be posting, but:
The protection of the intellectual property that is a cure for cancer, that is a patent, would last (in Canada at least) 20 years. Does this mean that the latest brilliance from Britney Spears is 4 times more valuable than a cure for cancer?
Huh? Did you read the link you posted? The op is entirely correct. Basalt is NOT a mineral.
A mineral is a naturally occurring homogeneous solid with a definite (but generally not fixed) chemical composition and an ordered atomic arrangement. Basalt is comprised of labradorite feldspar (a mineral), augite (a mineral), hypersthene (a mineral), olivine (a mineral) with minor biotite, magnetite, spinel, ilmenite and horneblende (all minerals). It is distinguished from gabbro (a rock) by being much finer grained. (From Manual of Mineralogy (after James D. Dana), 19th edition, Cornelius S. Hurlbut, jr.).
Basalt is NOT a mineral. It is made up of minerals, but it is NOT a mineral.
Well then, how about they predict today's climate (say a 60 month moving average temperature for 10 stations) with 50 year old information? That hasn't been done either. The OP's point is valid.
A second fallacy I'm seeing here is "Students have free time". What kind of degree did most/. people get? I've more free time now with a job, two kids and major home renovations than I ever had as a student.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this w32.SillyFDC.BDJ contained in the ZIP file? Is it there by accident? Did you post in ignorance of a site distributing a worm or are you the author?
"Compared to Physics of almost any kind, "climate science" is a soft and politicized science. Since it allows no experiments," I just can't let this lie. I am strongly in the sceptic camp. That being said, to claim that there is no science, including experimental science, in climate research is to expose yourself as a complete ignoramus. There have been extensive experimental evaluations of the absorption of EMR by trace gases in the atmosphere (see Hottell, Leckner). There is very detailed science, including experimentation, in determining the 'standard atmosphere', without which air travel would be considerably more dangerous. Indeed, every facet of this particular area of applied science is deeply rooted in pure science. Mann et. al. are (in my opinion) guilty of bad record keeping. The journals that published the original hockey stick are guilty of not using the right peers for review. Hansen et. al. are guilty of reinventing the wheel when it comes to radiant heat transfer methods. But all of them are better scientists than most of the people who post here. A bit thin skinned and prone to tantrums, but then, so am I.
Normally, I don't reply to such things, particularly when there is such venom involved. It indicates a closed mind and a lack of tolerance, but anyway, here goes. Copied and pasted from the PDF of the Wegman report I have on my computer (and that I re-read prior to my first posting).
Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
For one (there are others) of the statutes under which Steve McIntyre must work, see this site http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/mining.asp, also do some reading on national instrument 43-101.
I can't believe you still labour under the impression that all of the data has been released into the public domain.
This was indeed the first release of this information.
Rage is not conducive to clear thinking. It shows in this series of posts of yours, all of which exude a strong dollop of rage.
I think you are mistaking mercantilism http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercantilism for libertarianism http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarianism. A common mistake. Very different group of people.
You do know that major banks http://www.db.com/en/content/company/corporate_and_investment_bank.htm(click on 'Sustainable Products and Services) are primary pushers of cap and trade don't you? They stand to make billions. Enron too was into carbon credits. You might want to revisit who the greedy fellows are in this debate. Certainly not these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03QcymdCtg.
Point 1, Nature. Was still publishing articles supporting Piltdown man within 2 years of it being finally accepted as a hoax. They have been fooled before
Point 2, Senate "inquisition" slammed Mann et.al. (if you are talking about Wegman, he called Mann's work obscure and incomplete with conclusions not supported by the data)
Point 3, Not sure how you came to the conclusion that calling the conclusions unsupported by the data "agreeing"
Point 4, See point 1,
Point 5, guess you didn't try too hard http://books.google.com/books?id=8WqYkGxvPlAC&dq=%E2%80%9CShattered+Consensus:+The+True+State+of+Global+Warming%E2%80%9D&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=veoYFgaLg9&sig=khERol_VbglL4JwcNuzN5JbaLJo&hl=en&ei=UxggS90fksmUB7CyxegF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resul#v=onepage&q&f=false
Point 6, Given that this article is about the FIRST, RELUCTANT, release of some of the very data that Mann used in constructing the hockey stick, I find it a bit rich that you are willing to claim that the raw data is all available
The temperature data is available, but the 'hidden decline' tree ring data . . . Not so much
Point 7, McIntyre's site is quite well known for being especially hard on skeptics who post idiotic comments. Of course, Steve is not advocating a point of view that requires the expenditure of billions of dollars. He is just asking for some discipline in the work being done.
In his real job, he is required to audit data under rules that would make climate scientists crap. In mining you have to publish your data (drill records) as soon as practicable. Competition?? Tough. Don't show your raw numbers and interpretation methods?? Go to jail. McIntyre audits a lot of data other than climate scientists data. Under rules that people like Jones and Mann would whine miserably about.
Maybe you might want to take off your own blinders and find a sight in addition to realclimate for information.
MOD PARENT UP!!
The problem that the climate scientists have created for themselves is that they are hiding the data from everyone. Up until a few months ago, these requests were relatively rare. Some of the requesting parties actually have fairly strong credentials. Steve McIntyre may be hated by the folk at realclimate, but he is an IPCC reviewer. To stonewall him is a little different than refusing to provide it to Jenny McCarthy.
I'll probably get flamebait or troll for this too, but this has always been the danger of the over-advocacy of climate change. Climate science is not even close to "settled". Nor is evolution, nor is physics. Well established and able to make verifiable predictions yes. Settled. No. The direct result of making the absurd claim that some cutting edge field of science is settled is this. Some complete moron then says "see, global warming wasn't settled, so evolution is bunk too" I've seen similar idiotic comments about plate tectonics as well. A number of years ago (far enough back it hasn't been cached), I wrote here that as scientists, we had better be right about climate change. Now we reap what we have sown. If it annoys you that idiots make claims like "global warming wasn't settled, so how can you be sure about evolution", look to the strident supporters of the cause. They (I'm talking about realclimate etc., here) are as responsible as Beck. By hammering any and all dissent without any concern as to the validity of the claims, they have made this type of comment inevitable. We will be seeing much more of it and we have only ourselves to blame.
Jeez man, couldn't you at least have come up with an on topic first post?
Anyway
The summary states
"Will the ash cloud cause cooling in Europe?" (nope)
Isn't this prediction from the same crew that predicted an unusually warm and short winter in Europe this year?
Climate science is not the only field that must calculate radiant heat loss in the atmosphere. If you back calculate the required emissivity to obtain the logarithmic increase in heat capture used in the climate models (the F = 5.35 ln [ CO2 ] ) you come up with radiant heat absorption that is not seen in other systems where the radiant heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. It is a fundamental premise in science that the laws apply no matter the system. As such, the climate model for absorption of CO2 should give the same results as other models in other fields that calculate radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere (models that have been used and improved continuously for decades before climate scientists started thinking about things). They do not, hence one must discard the above equation as overestimating the impact of CO2. The climate scientists reinvented the wheel when it came to radiant heat loss in the atmosphere. They got it very close, but there is a divergence. It occurs at about 50 ppm CO2. At about 200 ppm CO2 there will no longer be radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere. That is, at about 200 ppm, the absorption is maximized. I've seen arguments about "it's not a marker, it's a blanket" etc. The levels of CO2 up to 800 ppm atmospheric are within the limits of data for other fields (see Leckner and Hottel for methods). Put simply, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already. Adding more will not impact climate. Yes, this is my area of expertise. Most texts on heat transfer provide the method for calculating this. If you are beyond 2nd year physics and math, you will be able to prove this for yourself.
Here is an hypothesis: In the early 1980's, people who had made claims about the massive impacts of SO2 on the earth (anybody remember acid rain) realized that SO2 had made another impact. Not only did it cause acid rain, but it cooled the earth. Then came Pinatubo. OMG! What have we done!
Now it was time to come up with a scape goat for the impending impact on climate that was certain to occur with a world wide reduction in SO2. How about CO2? Hard to prove, impossible to eliminate, and 'everyone knows that CO2 is a green house gas'. Tin foil hat time? Maybe. Of course, the fact that CO2's impact on radiant heat loss is, and always has been, maximized, may have something to do with all of this. And really. deltaF=5.35lnC/Cnought? Isn't that just a little too idiotically simple?
Cheers
JE
>>Why? Because the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at saturation. Doesn't really matter
>>how much you blacken the windows in a house - once they hit "black" you're not adding any more to
>>the effect. Same with CO2 absorption and re-emission of specific infrared wavelengths - it's
>>already at saturation, and adding any more CO2 will have no effect.
>You are saying that because of bad analogies crafted by some AGW as a religion types, name the
>greenhouse analogy, to sway a bunch of brain-damaged morons. In reality the effect is more like an
>insulating blanket than a window, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the thicker the blanket is as
>the CO2 is heavier than air and stays closer to the ground. As CO2 increases the saturation point
>increase in elevation, and the warmer the air temperatures at the ground will be on an average.
No: The OP is correct. It is NOT like a blanket. It is like a marker. Also, CO2 concentration measured in PPM is very consistent throughout the atmosphere. Your thing about "saturation point increasing in elevation" is also off.
The total radiant heat loss from surface to space is determined by the product of concentration and distance. Once the absorbance reaches the maximum (atmospherically, this is somewhere between 50 to 100 ppm) further increases in CO2 concentrations have NO impact on radiant heat loss. The climate calculations are a special, though in no way unusual, case of a very common type of calculation. In ALL other cases, this "point of saturation" thing is already accounted for. You are double counting the impact of CO2 if you add this in.
What you are roughly saying is that a slice of atmosphere will radiate heat at the same rate as the surface of the ground. That is, that a slice of atmosphere has the same heat capacity as the surface of the ground. Which it obviously does not. Air being about 2,000 times less dense than ground, 1 meter of ground will have as much heat as 2,000 meters of atmosphere at the ground. A whole lot more than that if you consider dropping pressure with altitude.
Cheers
JE
Some idiot has been given mod points. I've remodded 3 posts now. I see someone else is jumping in to help too. I generally don't get too upset when I get the occasional inexplicable flamebait or troll mod. It is a QTIP moment. (Quit Taking It Personally). Usually says more about the moderator than me.
Cheers
JE
You wrote:
"Actually, a BASIC compiler of some kind would be a wonderful thing to have in gcc."
An interesting thing. I recall in 1987 (or earlier?) that Borland had a basic compiler, turbo-basic. Was way better than the basic that came with MS-Dos. Borland's best piece of software IMHO was Quatro Pro. The old dos version is STILL better than Excell at graphs.
Cheers
JE
You wrote:
"What is the motivation of this person to post this kind of post these days. I don't get it, anyone care to explain?"
Obviously you haven't asked for help on the mailing lists or usenet with this OS. Personally, I thought his post was fairly restrained. I dumped FreeBSD after 6 years a couple of months back. A straight forward security update and suddenly I don't have a working X, most of my programs core dump and I can't get at anything. And the help on the mailing lists and usenet? X isn't part of the OS. You shouldn't run programs (i.e. Xorg) that aren't supported.
Run, don't walk from FreeBSD. It is a rotting hulk of a once proud thing and should be allowed to die in dignity.
Cheers
JE
You wrote:
"Note: I work for the CRTC. They are not proposing influencing the content itself but rather the distribution."
In either case, the nanny state is telling me what I can and cannot watch. Whether it is the content, that is direct cesorship, or the distribution, that is the ability to see what I want without "help" from the government (that is you), it is STILL censorship. It is, like all cancon laws, tarted up censorship.
JE
The push to go nuclear was nearly dead until Jim Hansen started agitating about global warming. Since then, as this article shows, the nuclear industry has revived. The mercury industry has also revived (thanks to compact fluorescents) and the lead industry has revived (thanks to electric cars). Now if we could only do something to promote asbestos and smoking, the environmental gains from the global warming industry would be complete.
Cheers
JE
I stand corrected. I do recall reading (I think on that same USGS site) that the rise due to Antarctic melting would be substantially mitigated by the fact that a large amount of the ice is floating or near to floating. In the absence of a reference however, I will defer to your number for the time being. In either case, the Maldives will be flooded and under 7 to 70 meters of water in the very near future . . . Geologically speaking of course.
Cheers
JE
>> Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum.
> 7 metres is not the maximum. It may be unlikely, but the Antarctic ice *could* melt eventually (since it has in the distant past).
Sorry, should have been specific. Seven meters is the maximum. It will occur again when the Greenland AND Antarctic ice sheets melt again. Greenland was ice free about 100,000 years ago. The antarctic has not been for at least 500,000 years, so I'm not too worried.
Cheers
JE
Your question is simple, but the answer is not. Sea levels have risen 120 meters during this interglacial warming period. Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum. The fact that these islands exist above current sea levels is proof that the sea levels have been higher than they are now. These islands are basically relic coral reefs and hence formed under water.
Cheers
JE
I recall this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm being reported. Huge under the ice volcanoes might have some impact wouldn't you think?
Cheers
je
I found both State of Fear and Timeline to be excellent reads. Some may vehemently disagree with State of Fear as it is as much a political book as a science book, but Timeline was definitely science related. Jurassic Park too for that matter. All three were definitely better than the excruciatingly endless "the road".
JE
This may be a dupe comment. I'm at work and shouldn't be posting, but:
The protection of the intellectual property that is a cure for cancer, that is a patent, would last (in Canada at least) 20 years. Does this mean that the latest brilliance from Britney Spears is 4 times more valuable than a cure for cancer?
Cheers
JE
Huh? Did you read the link you posted? The op is entirely correct. Basalt is NOT a mineral.
A mineral is a naturally occurring homogeneous solid with a definite (but generally not fixed) chemical composition and an ordered atomic arrangement. Basalt is comprised of labradorite feldspar (a mineral), augite (a mineral), hypersthene (a mineral), olivine (a mineral) with minor biotite, magnetite, spinel, ilmenite and horneblende (all minerals). It is distinguished from gabbro (a rock) by being much finer grained. (From Manual of Mineralogy (after James D. Dana), 19th edition, Cornelius S. Hurlbut, jr.).
Basalt is NOT a mineral. It is made up of minerals, but it is NOT a mineral.
Cheers.
JE
Well then, how about they predict today's climate (say a 60 month moving average temperature for 10 stations) with 50 year old information? That hasn't been done either. The OP's point is valid.
Cheers
JE
A second fallacy I'm seeing here is "Students have free time". What kind of degree did most /. people get? I've more free time now with a job, two kids and major home renovations than I ever had as a student.
Cheers
JE