Except the satellite record starts in 1979, which may have been a peak for ice extent. Historical records indicate early 20th century warming from ~1920 to 1940 in the arctic, with Russian observations noting retreating glaciers, melting of ice islands, retreat of permafrost, decreasing sea ice, acceleration of ice drift, increased air temperatures, biological signs of Arctic warming, and increased ease of navigation: http://mclean.ch/climate/Arcti...
Here's a more up-to-date graphic: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plo...
Not sure why yours shows less than 4 million square km in 2012, and the up-to-date one shows over 14 million square km currently. Maybe it's multi-year ice? I know the summer extent of ice in the arctic dips down to about 4Mkm^2 during summer...
That's a stupid analogy. If the malware is coded well, you won't know it's there and it won't interfere with the operation of your computer. You're using the example of poorly crafted malware. How about I use the example of a poorly marked bill, where they use black ink and completely coat the bill to such a point that nobody will accept it as legal tender?
But the legal argument is shaky. Banks will put marked bills in a stack of money, so that if the bank gets robbed, they can hopefully track those marked bills back to the thief. What the FBI did here is very similar. They didn't trick anyone into visiting the site serving the CP, they merely marked the people that visited with some malware so they could be tracked down. They didn't issue a blanket warrant to search 8000 homes in the hopes of finding a crime. It would be the same as the police monitoring the home of a known drug dealer and recording the license plates of all the cars that pull up for a quick visit.
1080p not widely available yet because ATSC 3.0 is currently in experimentation and testing trials. Satellite broadcasters currently offer 1080p for pay-per-view and on-demand broadband. 1080p is not being streamed by pay channels and cable services at the moment due to insufficient bandwidth due to currently implemented services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
total horseshit. They identify that ERI's tend to be hot, so they adjust the buoy data up to match. That adds additional warming that doesn't actually exist to the record for the time period where the buoys are recording data. And because they're now weighting buoy data more heavily in the record, we have an adjustment from actual temperatures to a fake higher temperature carrying even more weight than they should. It's a shell game. Notice that they claim the adjustments are "effectively identical in trend"? They avoid saying the temperatures are the same! I don't care about the trend when they're making the claims of "hottest year ever" and "hottest decade ever". Trend doesn't matter in those cases, but the fake heat added from their adjustments definitely does! The purpose of new instrumentation is to get more accurate results. If the new instrumentation reveals previously unknown errors in older instrumentation, you DON'T adjust the data recorded with the new instrumentation! That is fraudulent! You increase your error bars for your data recorded with that older instrumentation. Do you know why they didn't adjust ERI data down? Because it would lower the calculated temperatures in the 1990's more than it would the 1930's, and suddenly the 1930's would stand out as being much hotter than the 1990's!!!
Which part of it is terribly conceived or poorly written? How was it horribly implemented? Currently there are 6 countries named that are in the midst of civil strife/war, and unable or unwilling to provide the data needed to verify info of travelers from their region. The 7th country is Iran. Not sure why they were selected, it might be because they're uncooperative, or it might be because they have a habit of chanting "Death to America" at large gatherings.
New advances in technology continue to drop costs and allow development of previously too hard to recover reserves. That trend is unlikely to change any time soon. We definitely have enough to keep us going for a century, and as I said, nuclear technology will continue to advance apace.
You're confusing (or skeptical science is confusing) "Climate Sensitivity" with the actual mathematical calculation of radiative forcing directly caused by CO2. Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Calculus. 1.2C.
The Climate Sensitivity argument is the part of the Climate "science" that is still in debate. The IPCC says increased warmth from CO2 will cause more evaporation, which will cause increased warming from atmospheric water vapor. But this is a very tenuous claim, as more evaporation will also increase cloud cover as well as increasing convective cooling.
First off, that's a horrible chart to be referencing, as it's a prediction output from a simple climate model. But let's look at it anyway. At 2000Gt of CO2, we have about 1.2C. double the output to 4000Gt (although I don't know if that will double the concentration in the atmosphere) and we get around 2.4C. Double that agian to 8000Gt, and that puts us up around the 4C mark. So even though this chart is talking about human CO2 output and not the concentration in the atmosphere, it is still giving us roughly 1.2C per doubling.
You are incorrect. It is "politically correct" to fully support the global warming alarmism. But ACTUAL SCIENCE calculates only 1.2C of warming for every doubling of CO2. At our current level of 400ppm CO2, that means pumping it up to 1600ppm will only add an additional 2.4C. The "politically correct" version of global warming says that there are additional positive feedbacks that will cause much more than 2.4C of warming. But these positive feedbacks are NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE. They are theorized, disputed, and unproven. And logically, if our climate has positive feedbacks to increasing CO2, our planet should have been completely fried a long time ago.
Really hot? Doubtful. 1.2C per doubling of CO2 according to the actual physics. Any additional warming would have to come from a positive feedback loop, which is an unproven theory and doubtful if one thinks about it. If our climate is so sensitive to CO2 increases and there were a positive feedback loop, a single large volcano could trigger a runaway climate catastrophe.
We're not going to run out of fossil fuels. There's enough known reserves to keep us going for several more centuries. Advancements in nuclear tech and other areas will see fossil fuels become obsolete long before we run the risk of running out.
The sea level rise is slow enough that people will be able to move in an orderly fashion. Nobody is going to find themselves suddenly overwhelmed by ocean. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in North America and Europe, it's the rich people that own the beachfront property, so I don't think they'll be suffering. In fact, it's kind of a bit of schadenfreude that they'll be losing their very expensive real estate, since their carbon footprint is likely the 100x the size of the average citizen. What's more likely to happen, however, is a bit of construction and engineering to prevent much loss of land overall. Over a quarter of Holland is below sea level because they've done a fantastic job of reclaiming land from the ocean. And most of this was done or is doable with old fashioned tech. Dykes, canals, windmills, and pumps.
People may have to move so they advance the clock, but millions of migrants flooding into Europe all through 2016 didn't cause it to budge? My BS sensors are going off....
It's a fact that Trump is an unhinged leader?
Definition of unhinged: mentally unbalanced, deranged.
Please provide citations to verify this claim. Psychological assessments, previous public safety employment tests, or neuropsychological tests indicating he's deranged would be acceptable proof of this claim. Otherwise it's just your opinion.
More people die from cold waves than from heat waves. And higher CO2 increases crop yields. Deserts over the past 30 years have been shrinking as atmospheric CO2 has risen. The theory of increased CO2 leading to increased hurricanes hasn't panned out. So where's the threat to humanity here? Shrinking property values for coastal mansions?
Slashdot Mirror
Except the satellite record starts in 1979, which may have been a peak for ice extent. Historical records indicate early 20th century warming from ~1920 to 1940 in the arctic, with Russian observations noting retreating glaciers, melting of ice islands, retreat of permafrost, decreasing sea ice, acceleration of ice drift, increased air temperatures, biological signs of Arctic warming, and increased ease of navigation: http://mclean.ch/climate/Arcti...
Here's a more up-to-date graphic: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plo...
Not sure why yours shows less than 4 million square km in 2012, and the up-to-date one shows over 14 million square km currently. Maybe it's multi-year ice? I know the summer extent of ice in the arctic dips down to about 4Mkm^2 during summer...
That's a stupid analogy. If the malware is coded well, you won't know it's there and it won't interfere with the operation of your computer. You're using the example of poorly crafted malware. How about I use the example of a poorly marked bill, where they use black ink and completely coat the bill to such a point that nobody will accept it as legal tender?
Yes, I know what an anomaly product is. I didn't claim that it biases the ANOMALY higher. Do you know what a temperature average is?
But the legal argument is shaky. Banks will put marked bills in a stack of money, so that if the bank gets robbed, they can hopefully track those marked bills back to the thief. What the FBI did here is very similar. They didn't trick anyone into visiting the site serving the CP, they merely marked the people that visited with some malware so they could be tracked down. They didn't issue a blanket warrant to search 8000 homes in the hopes of finding a crime. It would be the same as the police monitoring the home of a known drug dealer and recording the license plates of all the cars that pull up for a quick visit.
1080p not widely available yet because ATSC 3.0 is currently in experimentation and testing trials. Satellite broadcasters currently offer 1080p for pay-per-view and on-demand broadband. 1080p is not being streamed by pay channels and cable services at the moment due to insufficient bandwidth due to currently implemented services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
total horseshit. They identify that ERI's tend to be hot, so they adjust the buoy data up to match. That adds additional warming that doesn't actually exist to the record for the time period where the buoys are recording data. And because they're now weighting buoy data more heavily in the record, we have an adjustment from actual temperatures to a fake higher temperature carrying even more weight than they should. It's a shell game. Notice that they claim the adjustments are "effectively identical in trend"? They avoid saying the temperatures are the same! I don't care about the trend when they're making the claims of "hottest year ever" and "hottest decade ever". Trend doesn't matter in those cases, but the fake heat added from their adjustments definitely does! The purpose of new instrumentation is to get more accurate results. If the new instrumentation reveals previously unknown errors in older instrumentation, you DON'T adjust the data recorded with the new instrumentation! That is fraudulent! You increase your error bars for your data recorded with that older instrumentation. Do you know why they didn't adjust ERI data down? Because it would lower the calculated temperatures in the 1990's more than it would the 1930's, and suddenly the 1930's would stand out as being much hotter than the 1990's!!!
oh, you mean like when the more accurate ARGO buoy data was adjusted upwards to match the ship engine intake readings, which were known to run hot?
Well you can read the actual executive order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
Which part of it is terribly conceived or poorly written? How was it horribly implemented? Currently there are 6 countries named that are in the midst of civil strife/war, and unable or unwilling to provide the data needed to verify info of travelers from their region. The 7th country is Iran. Not sure why they were selected, it might be because they're uncooperative, or it might be because they have a habit of chanting "Death to America" at large gatherings.
New advances in technology continue to drop costs and allow development of previously too hard to recover reserves. That trend is unlikely to change any time soon. We definitely have enough to keep us going for a century, and as I said, nuclear technology will continue to advance apace.
That's all very interesting, but it's not relevant to the discussion of positive feedbacks.
You're confusing (or skeptical science is confusing) "Climate Sensitivity" with the actual mathematical calculation of radiative forcing directly caused by CO2. Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Calculus. 1.2C.
The Climate Sensitivity argument is the part of the Climate "science" that is still in debate. The IPCC says increased warmth from CO2 will cause more evaporation, which will cause increased warming from atmospheric water vapor. But this is a very tenuous claim, as more evaporation will also increase cloud cover as well as increasing convective cooling.
First off, that's a horrible chart to be referencing, as it's a prediction output from a simple climate model. But let's look at it anyway. At 2000Gt of CO2, we have about 1.2C. double the output to 4000Gt (although I don't know if that will double the concentration in the atmosphere) and we get around 2.4C. Double that agian to 8000Gt, and that puts us up around the 4C mark. So even though this chart is talking about human CO2 output and not the concentration in the atmosphere, it is still giving us roughly 1.2C per doubling.
There are numerous sources for this value, including the IPCC. They give a value of 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. You can derive the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and calculate the temperature increase.
References to 1.2C per doubling found using a quick google search:
http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/cli...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
https://judithcurry.com/2010/1...
https://climateaudit.org/2008/...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ri...
remnants of 2016 El Nino? Or maybe it's accumulated pollution from China: http://peninsulaclarion.com/st...
You are incorrect. It is "politically correct" to fully support the global warming alarmism. But ACTUAL SCIENCE calculates only 1.2C of warming for every doubling of CO2. At our current level of 400ppm CO2, that means pumping it up to 1600ppm will only add an additional 2.4C. The "politically correct" version of global warming says that there are additional positive feedbacks that will cause much more than 2.4C of warming. But these positive feedbacks are NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE. They are theorized, disputed, and unproven. And logically, if our climate has positive feedbacks to increasing CO2, our planet should have been completely fried a long time ago.
Really hot? Doubtful. 1.2C per doubling of CO2 according to the actual physics. Any additional warming would have to come from a positive feedback loop, which is an unproven theory and doubtful if one thinks about it. If our climate is so sensitive to CO2 increases and there were a positive feedback loop, a single large volcano could trigger a runaway climate catastrophe.
We're not going to run out of fossil fuels. There's enough known reserves to keep us going for several more centuries. Advancements in nuclear tech and other areas will see fossil fuels become obsolete long before we run the risk of running out.
The sea level rise is slow enough that people will be able to move in an orderly fashion. Nobody is going to find themselves suddenly overwhelmed by ocean. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in North America and Europe, it's the rich people that own the beachfront property, so I don't think they'll be suffering. In fact, it's kind of a bit of schadenfreude that they'll be losing their very expensive real estate, since their carbon footprint is likely the 100x the size of the average citizen. What's more likely to happen, however, is a bit of construction and engineering to prevent much loss of land overall. Over a quarter of Holland is below sea level because they've done a fantastic job of reclaiming land from the ocean. And most of this was done or is doable with old fashioned tech. Dykes, canals, windmills, and pumps.
Destruction of our one and only habitat? Destruction?
reinventing the eyetoke
People may have to move so they advance the clock, but millions of migrants flooding into Europe all through 2016 didn't cause it to budge? My BS sensors are going off....
You know you were lied to, right? http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/p...
So, at the height of the cold war, 1963, the clock was 7 minutes and 12 minutes from midnight, but now it's 2? I'd say it's pretty inaccurate...
It's a fact that Trump is an unhinged leader?
Definition of unhinged: mentally unbalanced, deranged.
Please provide citations to verify this claim. Psychological assessments, previous public safety employment tests, or neuropsychological tests indicating he's deranged would be acceptable proof of this claim. Otherwise it's just your opinion.
More people die from cold waves than from heat waves. And higher CO2 increases crop yields. Deserts over the past 30 years have been shrinking as atmospheric CO2 has risen. The theory of increased CO2 leading to increased hurricanes hasn't panned out. So where's the threat to humanity here? Shrinking property values for coastal mansions?