A large increase in the atmospheric concentration of one of the major temperature regulating gasses, over a 30% increase in CO2 and still rising rapidly, is due entirely to human inputs of CO2. We KNOW that, there is no question about that. Our planet is as warm as it is because of atmpspheric CO2. Without atmospheric CO2, we would be a ball of ice. We have just made a major alteratiin, in just about a century, in the concentratin of that gas, to levels WAY outside anything oserved in well over half a million years.
Arguing that we cant drive global processes is simply absurd, in the fact of even just this one fact.
The starting point for anthropogenic warming is at temperatures already very, very near the the highest seen in over 650,000 years, based on available data.
Yes, global climate changes. But no, it has not changed into the realms we are moving into, at least not within the time span of the evolution of our species, or of almost all species now on the planet. We are moving global climate into new regimes.
The speed of my car changes all the time, too, But that does not mean I can put my foot to the floor when I'm already doing 75 mph, and expect things to remain all right for very long.
Nobody is marketing 747s to the entire population.
I can go down to Walmart and buy a consumer computer for a few hundred dollars. That box is designed and marketed specifically to allow large numbers of naive consumers to access the internet. If that target-market naive consumer buys the box, follows instructions exactly, and reads all the accompanying literature --in other words, if from the naive consumer viewpoint s/he does everything exactly right-- there is NOTHING that mitigates this risk.
That is bad design, or bad education, and it is NOT the fault of the masses of people who behave exactly as the marketing folks expect them to behave.
you apparently mean "people who dont have my knowledge base."
If a majority of the users of a class of products, or even a significant minority, are prone to using that product in a way that gives their identities away and makes their finances vulnerable, then the problem is NOT with the users.
It is a design problem, or at best a serious unaddressed education problem.
Blaming the customers when a large number of them repeatedly experience the exact same problem, is simply scapegoating the customers for the problem.
all the monitoring info was radio relayed to a monitoring statin at the central desk, where a single nurse monitored it full time. The unit had a staffing ratin of one nurses per three patients; the monitoring nurse was one of them If they had lost that connection, they would not have had sufficient staff to keep every patient adequately monitored. They didnt have sufficient staff to personally monitor the patients anyway, even with the electronic monitoring helping them out. The nurses were acutely aware of this, and were not happy about it.
eBay owns a minority interest (a founder sold his stock to ebay). They do nto control any part of the Craigslist operation.
CL makes money by charging f0r job ads, in the few cities whre there are sufficint job ads to make it worthwhile. Everything else is free.
They are considering (or may have already decided) to start charging a nominal fee for some other categories of ads, mostly to discourge multiple repeat listings for the same apartment, etc.
Absent very low probability events where two identical mutations occur in two individuals, yes, single mutations can be traced to single individuals. But that isn't enough for speciation.
"Except for the fact that water vapor is SEVEN TIMES the green house gas that CO2 is, and it is present in the atmosphere in MUCH MUCH higher concentrations. Over all, water vapor contributes 280,000 time more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and it's been doing it for ages, long before CO2 rose 25% to a measley 375 parts per million."
The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is very short, on theorder of a few weeks. Perturb the equlilibrium for water vapor, and within a very short time, the atmosphere returns to equilibrium. The residence time for CO2 is many, many, many orders of mgnitude longer. This means that CO2 increases can create long-term perturbatins in global atmospheric heat flow, but water vapor cant. The climate people refer to this with the pharase, "CO2 is a driver, water is a feedback."
"Possibly the real contributor to global warming is not the warm fuzzies of CO2 but the the heat itself that is released when Carbon based fuels are burned. A coal, oil or gas burning power plant needs to waste one unit of energy for every unit of energy it delivers to the consumer, and that is with the power plant operating at close to 100% efficiency. The worse the efficiency the worse the heat waste. Eventually, all energy generated or wasted by power plants ends up as waste heat. That waste heat raises the mean temperature of the atmosphere until the T gets high enough so that the energy radiated (proportional to T^4) back into space equals the total of the incident Solar energy and the waste heat energy."
That waste heat radiates VERY FAST. Ever notice how cold it gets at night? That is due to radiative heat loss. Add more heat at the surface, and the excess is very rapidly lost. You might also want to calculate the ratio of human heat release to heat input from solar irradiation; the results might show you that this argument is pretty weak.
"Atmospheric scientists know that the concentration of CO2 is not high enough by itself to cause global warming, so they postulate a "trigger" or "catalyst" effect, which is unproven. Neither my theory nor theirs can explain the last hot house period that occured 1,200 years ago. Then, the CO2 was lower than it is now and there were no power plants spewing heat, so the burning of fossile fuels was not the cause. That leave other possible causes: solar output or volcanos, to name a couple."
Your first sentence her is simply absurd. Our planet is not a ball of ice only becaus e of global warming due to CO2. The question is how much the ADDITIONAL CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere is causing ADDITIONAL warming. And we know that effect is happening; the debates are over how much additinal warming we are/will going to experience with this much additional CO2. That discussion involves known feedback effects (not triggers) like waramer temps causing increased atmospheric water content, for example, leading to a magnification of the warming effect. BTW, this article does NOT say it was hotter 1200 years ago. That is simply as far back as their analysis goes. Other good studies show it was NOT as warm than as it is now.
If the really interesting question is how much human activity is contributing to global temperature cahnges, one must first determine the global temperature chang es,as one of severala necessary input measurements.
Not unless the stressor is a mutagen, certain chemical insults or radiation for example.
Environmental stress leads to changes in selective pressure (not in mutation), and often to changes in the traits subject to significant directional selective pressure. This acts on the ongoing background (and relatively constant) mutation rate, to drive divergence from the existing means and toward some new equilibrium, and you get rapid evolutionary divergence from the parent population.
Also, there is nothing in existing evolutionary theory that restricts speciation in a small or stressed population to a single common ancestor. Mutation can act within any member of the population and spread through the population from multiple individuals, and selection drives changes in gene frequency in the entire population; almost by definition, speciation is a population event, not an individual event.
Sure. I dotn like a lot about what we're doing now, either. Show me a real proposal, being pushed by real politicians with real support and with a real chance of making a real change, attacking the legacy/social/economic issues underlying these problems (and the perpetuation of the effects of the overt racism that caused a lot of this ongoing institutionalized disparity) and I'd be all over trading in our current flawed band-aid approaches.
But what we've got now is better than nothing, and really helps at least some people who are fighting out of that legacy of the past, and until I see something better than what we've got now **BEING ACTUALLY CREATED** I'll continue to argue to keep at least what we've got.
Evaporation is what creates the changes in the ratio from the base ratio in the ocean water. That is the physical basis of the temperature dependent variations. The ocean itself has a base ratio. Light water evaporates more readily than heavy water, so there is a skewing of the ratio toward light water in the atmopspheric vapor. That differential evaporation rate is itself temperature dependent, so the amount of variation from the oceanic base line is a function of the temp of the water. And any differential in precipitation is consistent, and is easily corrected. Again, that is the bais of the measurement. It ispublished, you could look it up.
There are other proxies as well. They arent dependent on just this one, but from what Ie read 9quite a lot) this one is robust, and consitently confirmed by other proxies, so this becomes tha basic one they use.
So you dont know the physical/chemical basis of this data, and haven't bothered to inform yourself before disputing it.
Got it.
Temperatures are determined by proxy measurements. The primary proxy is the ratio of heavy water to light water. This ratio is a function of the temperature of the source water from which the water vapor evaporates. Grab a bit of fossil ice, determine that ratio, and basically, you measure the surface temp of the source ocean basin from which the water evaporated. Please note that ocean basins are not highly localized.
Yes, it is more complex, and there are correcting factors to deal with, but this is the basis. You could look it up.
BTW, I did break out my responses; slashdot collapsed the white spaces.
Take a 1 mile walk from a primarily black and latino flatlands Oakland Ca school, where the average school size is 600 -700 kids in a K-5 elementary school and where the average teacher at some schools has LESS THAN TWO FRICKIN YEARS of teaching experience and where some 5th grade kids I know have had first year teachers every day they have been in school, to a primarily white and asian hills school where average school size is 350 kids and average teacher experience is upwards of 15 years, and where the teacher salary differential means the average DISTRICT spending is over $1,000 per year per kid more and outside funding is also nearly $1,000 per student per year greater, and then tell me about institutional racism.
Get as outraged about that as you are about 'institutional racism aagaisnt whites', and I may believe you actually care about institutional racism, and are not just whining about a minor bit of personal barrier you marginally encounter after being given a massive advantage agaisnt many, many potentially competitive kids who get destroyed in those institutionally disadvantaged schools.
Until then (and yes, I'm being disruptively rude here; live with it. This kind of shit pissed me off.) just f*ck off.
let's give this a try.
Ice core samples have a built in bias...they only show local conditions where it was cold enough to freeze.
Nope, they show the temperature of the source from which the water evaporated, to form atmospheric vapor which subsequently snows to create ice. IOW, in large part, ocean temperatures. This is basic to the theory; if yo dont know this, then you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
From the global warming evangelists, we know that global warming may result in colder temperatures in some areas, but warmer temperatures overall (global mean temperature). People that say, "we'll, it was colder this year where I live than last year" are making the mistake of taking a local experience and applying it to a global phenomenon. Scientists that take ice cores and plug the data into a model are making the exact same mistake. They don't have climate data for areas where ice wasn't formed. Even the trace atmospheric composition is a local phenomenon, as local methane composition varies heavily based on the foilage in the area.
-
Ice core data from vastly separated parts of the globe TRACK EACH OTHER for periods of hundreds of thousands of years. This gives pretty good confidence that they are reporting global phenomena. BTW, areas where snowfall is compacting into consolidated ice with fossil air inclusions, such as ice domes, do not have nay local foliage. Also the ability to make accurate BLIND predictions of one half of the CO2 / Temp pair given the other half, through three ice age cycles that are DIFFEREENT in form from the three that we previously knew and from which models were partly derived, and to do so accurately, is REALLY strong evidence that the models are valid.
The global mean temperature is extremely difficult to capture. It takes us thousands of sensor stations, satellites, and other devices to do it today. But we're supposed to trust some scientist's estimates of global mean temperature from some ice cores pulled from Greenland that carbon date to 600,000 years ago as an accurate indicator of global warming? If so, you're talking religion, not science.
-
The ice cores are not making global temperature determinations, they arent saying what the average global temperature is. They are showing relative temperature VARIATIONS from an arbitrary baseline, of water evaporated from the precipitation sources for the consolidating ice field. BTW, the 'some scientist' statement, implying thi s comes from some small limited aprt of the ocmmunity, once again demonstrates that you either are clueless about this field, or being intentiionally dishoinest. As is the 'carbon dating' comment.
bilateral, with both testicles removed. As in, he no longer has the organs necessary to make sperm, at all. He is totally sterile; biology tells us he can't have children.
He beat huge odds, and is still around nearly a decade later. He married a nurse he met while in the hospital. They now have 4 kids, all after they got married. None from his sperm, all 4 of them are very much his kids. They are wonderful parents, he is a wonderful father.
I have several friends who are in committed gay couples, with children. Same story; they may be sterile with each other, but that is no barrier to them having kids together, any more than mutual sterility was to the het couple above. And they are wonderful parents; they had to work at it to ahve kids, and they WANT and deeply love and work hard at raising their kids.
Dude, if your biology argument has any validity, then the first guy should no more be married or have kids than the gay couples. He clearly should. Therefore, no validity.
And I'm workign hard to be polite here.
1. Climate is not weather; this was kinda his point. No one is making 100 year weather forcasts, they are making 100 year CLIMATE predictions.
2. We now have over 600,000 years of good climate and CO2 data, from the ice cores.
3. When they retreived the earliest 200,000 years or so of that data, the ice core people released the temperature data, and challenged the modeling people to predict the CO2 accompanying levels. They did, and when the ice core people subsequently released the CO2 data, the modelers were spot on with their predictions. Close to 200,000 years of BLIND PREDICTED CO2 levels, tracked very, very closely to observed data.
That amounts to a little more than 100 years of observation.
our part of the state Superior California. Caue it was 'above' Northern California, which ends several hundred miles south of the northern border of California.
spent 30,000 miles being jounced around subject to flying debris, water, oil, SALT, heat, cold, in a semi-open environment.
If I get a hydraulic problem I can spot it quickly by seeing the drip, or noticing the reservoir is down a bit, or the warnign light comes on. If I get contaminated fluid, I can still pump the brakes to a stop. If my 'ethernet controlled' brake system fails, I got nuthin'. I dont like having nuthin', when its my brakes I'm talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
A large increase in the atmospheric concentration of one of the major temperature regulating gasses, over a 30% increase in CO2 and still rising rapidly, is due entirely to human inputs of CO2. We KNOW that, there is no question about that. Our planet is as warm as it is because of atmpspheric CO2. Without atmospheric CO2, we would be a ball of ice. We have just made a major alteratiin, in just about a century, in the concentratin of that gas, to levels WAY outside anything oserved in well over half a million years.
Arguing that we cant drive global processes is simply absurd, in the fact of even just this one fact.
The starting point for anthropogenic warming is at temperatures already very, very near the the highest seen in over 650,000 years, based on available data.
Yes, global climate changes. But no, it has not changed into the realms we are moving into, at least not within the time span of the evolution of our species, or of almost all species now on the planet. We are moving global climate into new regimes.
The speed of my car changes all the time, too, But that does not mean I can put my foot to the floor when I'm already doing 75 mph, and expect things to remain all right for very long.
Nobody is marketing 747s to the entire population.
I can go down to Walmart and buy a consumer computer for a few hundred dollars. That box is designed and marketed specifically to allow large numbers of naive consumers to access the internet. If that target-market naive consumer buys the box, follows instructions exactly, and reads all the accompanying literature --in other words, if from the naive consumer viewpoint s/he does everything exactly right-- there is NOTHING that mitigates this risk.
That is bad design, or bad education, and it is NOT the fault of the masses of people who behave exactly as the marketing folks expect them to behave.
you apparently mean "people who dont have my knowledge base."
If a majority of the users of a class of products, or even a significant minority, are prone to using that product in a way that gives their identities away and makes their finances vulnerable, then the problem is NOT with the users.
It is a design problem, or at best a serious unaddressed education problem.
Blaming the customers when a large number of them repeatedly experience the exact same problem, is simply scapegoating the customers for the problem.
all the monitoring info was radio relayed to a monitoring statin at the central desk, where a single nurse monitored it full time. The unit had a staffing ratin of one nurses per three patients; the monitoring nurse was one of them If they had lost that connection, they would not have had sufficient staff to keep every patient adequately monitored. They didnt have sufficient staff to personally monitor the patients anyway, even with the electronic monitoring helping them out. The nurses were acutely aware of this, and were not happy about it.
eBay owns a minority interest (a founder sold his stock to ebay). They do nto control any part of the Craigslist operation.
CL makes money by charging f0r job ads, in the few cities whre there are sufficint job ads to make it worthwhile. Everything else is free.
They are considering (or may have already decided) to start charging a nominal fee for some other categories of ads, mostly to discourge multiple repeat listings for the same apartment, etc.
Absent very low probability events where two identical mutations occur in two individuals, yes, single mutations can be traced to single individuals. But that isn't enough for speciation.
"Except for the fact that water vapor is SEVEN TIMES the green house gas that CO2 is, and it is present in the atmosphere in MUCH MUCH higher concentrations. Over all, water vapor contributes 280,000 time more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and it's been doing it for ages, long before CO2 rose 25% to a measley 375 parts per million."
The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is very short, on theorder of a few weeks. Perturb the equlilibrium for water vapor, and within a very short time, the atmosphere returns to equilibrium. The residence time for CO2 is many, many, many orders of mgnitude longer. This means that CO2 increases can create long-term perturbatins in global atmospheric heat flow, but water vapor cant. The climate people refer to this with the pharase, "CO2 is a driver, water is a feedback."
"Possibly the real contributor to global warming is not the warm fuzzies of CO2 but the the heat itself that is released when Carbon based fuels are burned. A coal, oil or gas burning power plant needs to waste one unit of energy for every unit of energy it delivers to the consumer, and that is with the power plant operating at close to 100% efficiency. The worse the efficiency the worse the heat waste. Eventually, all energy generated or wasted by power plants ends up as waste heat. That waste heat raises the mean temperature of the atmosphere until the T gets high enough so that the energy radiated (proportional to T^4) back into space equals the total of the incident Solar energy and the waste heat energy."
That waste heat radiates VERY FAST. Ever notice how cold it gets at night? That is due to radiative heat loss. Add more heat at the surface, and the excess is very rapidly lost. You might also want to calculate the ratio of human heat release to heat input from solar irradiation; the results might show you that this argument is pretty weak.
"Atmospheric scientists know that the concentration of CO2 is not high enough by itself to cause global warming, so they postulate a "trigger" or "catalyst" effect, which is unproven. Neither my theory nor theirs can explain the last hot house period that occured 1,200 years ago. Then, the CO2 was lower than it is now and there were no power plants spewing heat, so the burning of fossile fuels was not the cause. That leave other possible causes: solar output or volcanos, to name a couple."
Your first sentence her is simply absurd. Our planet is not a ball of ice only becaus e of global warming due to CO2. The question is how much the ADDITIONAL CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere is causing ADDITIONAL warming. And we know that effect is happening; the debates are over how much additinal warming we are/will going to experience with this much additional CO2. That discussion involves known feedback effects (not triggers) like waramer temps causing increased atmospheric water content, for example, leading to a magnification of the warming effect. BTW, this article does NOT say it was hotter 1200 years ago. That is simply as far back as their analysis goes. Other good studies show it was NOT as warm than as it is now.
If the really interesting question is how much human activity is contributing to global temperature cahnges, one must first determine the global temperature chang es,as one of severala necessary input measurements.
Not unless the stressor is a mutagen, certain chemical insults or radiation for example.
Environmental stress leads to changes in selective pressure (not in mutation), and often to changes in the traits subject to significant directional selective pressure. This acts on the ongoing background (and relatively constant) mutation rate, to drive divergence from the existing means and toward some new equilibrium, and you get rapid evolutionary divergence from the parent population.
Also, there is nothing in existing evolutionary theory that restricts speciation in a small or stressed population to a single common ancestor. Mutation can act within any member of the population and spread through the population from multiple individuals, and selection drives changes in gene frequency in the entire population; almost by definition, speciation is a population event, not an individual event.
Sure. I dotn like a lot about what we're doing now, either. Show me a real proposal, being pushed by real politicians with real support and with a real chance of making a real change, attacking the legacy/social/economic issues underlying these problems (and the perpetuation of the effects of the overt racism that caused a lot of this ongoing institutionalized disparity) and I'd be all over trading in our current flawed band-aid approaches.
But what we've got now is better than nothing, and really helps at least some people who are fighting out of that legacy of the past, and until I see something better than what we've got now **BEING ACTUALLY CREATED** I'll continue to argue to keep at least what we've got.
Evaporation is what creates the changes in the ratio from the base ratio in the ocean water. That is the physical basis of the temperature dependent variations. The ocean itself has a base ratio. Light water evaporates more readily than heavy water, so there is a skewing of the ratio toward light water in the atmopspheric vapor. That differential evaporation rate is itself temperature dependent, so the amount of variation from the oceanic base line is a function of the temp of the water. And any differential in precipitation is consistent, and is easily corrected. Again, that is the bais of the measurement. It ispublished, you could look it up.
There are other proxies as well. They arent dependent on just this one, but from what Ie read 9quite a lot) this one is robust, and consitently confirmed by other proxies, so this becomes tha basic one they use.
So you dont know the physical/chemical basis of this data, and haven't bothered to inform yourself before disputing it. Got it. Temperatures are determined by proxy measurements. The primary proxy is the ratio of heavy water to light water. This ratio is a function of the temperature of the source water from which the water vapor evaporates. Grab a bit of fossil ice, determine that ratio, and basically, you measure the surface temp of the source ocean basin from which the water evaporated. Please note that ocean basins are not highly localized. Yes, it is more complex, and there are correcting factors to deal with, but this is the basis. You could look it up. BTW, I did break out my responses; slashdot collapsed the white spaces.
Take a 1 mile walk from a primarily black and latino flatlands Oakland Ca school, where the average school size is 600 -700 kids in a K-5 elementary school and where the average teacher at some schools has LESS THAN TWO FRICKIN YEARS of teaching experience and where some 5th grade kids I know have had first year teachers every day they have been in school, to a primarily white and asian hills school where average school size is 350 kids and average teacher experience is upwards of 15 years, and where the teacher salary differential means the average DISTRICT spending is over $1,000 per year per kid more and outside funding is also nearly $1,000 per student per year greater, and then tell me about institutional racism. Get as outraged about that as you are about 'institutional racism aagaisnt whites', and I may believe you actually care about institutional racism, and are not just whining about a minor bit of personal barrier you marginally encounter after being given a massive advantage agaisnt many, many potentially competitive kids who get destroyed in those institutionally disadvantaged schools. Until then (and yes, I'm being disruptively rude here; live with it. This kind of shit pissed me off.) just f*ck off.
let's give this a try. Ice core samples have a built in bias...they only show local conditions where it was cold enough to freeze. Nope, they show the temperature of the source from which the water evaporated, to form atmospheric vapor which subsequently snows to create ice. IOW, in large part, ocean temperatures. This is basic to the theory; if yo dont know this, then you dont have a clue what you are talking about. From the global warming evangelists, we know that global warming may result in colder temperatures in some areas, but warmer temperatures overall (global mean temperature). People that say, "we'll, it was colder this year where I live than last year" are making the mistake of taking a local experience and applying it to a global phenomenon. Scientists that take ice cores and plug the data into a model are making the exact same mistake. They don't have climate data for areas where ice wasn't formed. Even the trace atmospheric composition is a local phenomenon, as local methane composition varies heavily based on the foilage in the area. - Ice core data from vastly separated parts of the globe TRACK EACH OTHER for periods of hundreds of thousands of years. This gives pretty good confidence that they are reporting global phenomena. BTW, areas where snowfall is compacting into consolidated ice with fossil air inclusions, such as ice domes, do not have nay local foliage. Also the ability to make accurate BLIND predictions of one half of the CO2 / Temp pair given the other half, through three ice age cycles that are DIFFEREENT in form from the three that we previously knew and from which models were partly derived, and to do so accurately, is REALLY strong evidence that the models are valid. The global mean temperature is extremely difficult to capture. It takes us thousands of sensor stations, satellites, and other devices to do it today. But we're supposed to trust some scientist's estimates of global mean temperature from some ice cores pulled from Greenland that carbon date to 600,000 years ago as an accurate indicator of global warming? If so, you're talking religion, not science. - The ice cores are not making global temperature determinations, they arent saying what the average global temperature is. They are showing relative temperature VARIATIONS from an arbitrary baseline, of water evaporated from the precipitation sources for the consolidating ice field. BTW, the 'some scientist' statement, implying thi s comes from some small limited aprt of the ocmmunity, once again demonstrates that you either are clueless about this field, or being intentiionally dishoinest. As is the 'carbon dating' comment.
bilateral, with both testicles removed. As in, he no longer has the organs necessary to make sperm, at all. He is totally sterile; biology tells us he can't have children. He beat huge odds, and is still around nearly a decade later. He married a nurse he met while in the hospital. They now have 4 kids, all after they got married. None from his sperm, all 4 of them are very much his kids. They are wonderful parents, he is a wonderful father. I have several friends who are in committed gay couples, with children. Same story; they may be sterile with each other, but that is no barrier to them having kids together, any more than mutual sterility was to the het couple above. And they are wonderful parents; they had to work at it to ahve kids, and they WANT and deeply love and work hard at raising their kids. Dude, if your biology argument has any validity, then the first guy should no more be married or have kids than the gay couples. He clearly should. Therefore, no validity. And I'm workign hard to be polite here.
There is some dispute about whether evolution is real, too. Hell, there is dispute about whether the planet is round or flat.
1. Climate is not weather; this was kinda his point. No one is making 100 year weather forcasts, they are making 100 year CLIMATE predictions.
2. We now have over 600,000 years of good climate and CO2 data, from the ice cores.
3. When they retreived the earliest 200,000 years or so of that data, the ice core people released the temperature data, and challenged the modeling people to predict the CO2 accompanying levels. They did, and when the ice core people subsequently released the CO2 data, the modelers were spot on with their predictions. Close to 200,000 years of BLIND PREDICTED CO2 levels, tracked very, very closely to observed data.
That amounts to a little more than 100 years of observation.
our part of the state Superior California. Caue it was 'above' Northern California, which ends several hundred miles south of the northern border of California.
a few hundred feet high, say, and maybe a few miles long, at right angles to the slip fault.
Then a slip occurs, and that land mass includng that ridge moves, say, 30 feet sideways.
No uplift at all, but that moving ridge could still move a pretty good mass of water, and create a pretty good wave.
breasts into their mouths. Seems that would go a long ways toward compensating.
into their mouths. Seem to me that would go a LONG way towards compensating.
to being able to Vote for Spitzer. And I live in California... which is a clue as to the office I want to be voting him into.
spent 30,000 miles being jounced around subject to flying debris, water, oil, SALT, heat, cold, in a semi-open environment. If I get a hydraulic problem I can spot it quickly by seeing the drip, or noticing the reservoir is down a bit, or the warnign light comes on. If I get contaminated fluid, I can still pump the brakes to a stop. If my 'ethernet controlled' brake system fails, I got nuthin'. I dont like having nuthin', when its my brakes I'm talking about.
We have over 400,000 years of useful atmospheric data. Your ignorance of this very basic fact disqualifies the entirety of your statement.