You may not have known this as a child, but you should be aware now: half of the Netherlands, where I live, is below sea-level. This does not mean we should abandon that part, it means we should take great care in protecting ourselves from the sea. In the US, there is a greater demand for "small government" compared to most of the rest of the world. As a result, the levees in New Orleans had a statistical likeliness of breaking once every 230 years. The Dutch dikes that protect our cities are made to break every 10000 years.
Hey I have a different idea. If you find this silly you can let me know.
Why don't we set *one* quota of pollution that can be exhausted per world citizen, irrespectable of where this citizen lives? Sounds like a fair plan, doesn't it? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that China and India have acknowledged to proceed in this manner and attack global warming on an equal basis.
In the Netherlands it is legal to make extra copies of media you own, or to make a copy of a CD or DVD you borrowed from a friend, neigbor, etc. The copyright holders are compensated through a tax, in a rather obscure way. It is illegal to sell copyrighted work, or make copies and give away the copies yourself. All this is explained (in Dutch) by Stichting De Thuiskopie
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation were the same in Denmark.
I'm aware of them enough to draw my conclusions. These 25 points of the NSDAP you present were written in 1920. As you know, the nazi-party came into power through democratic elections. The NSDAP presented themselves as the party that would take the best care of the German citizens, hence also the "socialist" in their name. Hitler exploited the social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living.
Once in power, some of these points were quickly abandoned. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. Remember also that Hitler had a deep resentment of communism.
you do not that national socialism as it existed in '30 and '40 in Germany had nothing to do with socialism, right? It is a simple misnomer. Fascism pretty much excludes socialism because it is based on the rule of the strongest, a small elite governing the masses. Hitler had very little of a socialist viewpoint and neither had his supporters.
And why would these numbers be any more standard? I assume you mean "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change", topmost figure on the page. The reference this page gives is "Hansen, et al. (2001)", unfortunately I don't know which journal this is from, as there is no further mention. References from my numbers are
Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999:
Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years.
Reviews of Geophysics, 37, 173-199.
Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003:
Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001.
Journal of Climate, 16, 206-223.
Anyways, the graphs are not all that different. And both do NOT support your claim:
In fact, for 30 years between 1940 and 1970 the temperature dropped all that it had gained in the past 50 years.
Global temperature has risen from 1900 to 1940. Between 1940 and 1970 it did not rise or fall, from 1970 onwards it has risen. See this if you want to see it for yourself.
Please check out this faq if you make claims about noisy and ambiguous data.
I also disagree with your other points:
1. A lot of theories were popular and well accepted before they are disproven. True, but a lot more theories are accepted and turn out to be true. Also, a LOT of theories are not well accepted and turn out to be wrong. If you are not a climate scientist, this cannot be an argument AGIANST global warming.
2. As a university professor, you know that a theory is only as strong as the arguments that support it. If a paper is flawed or can be disproven, a scientist would jump at the chance to tear it to pieces. While it's true that climate scientist are focussed on global warming, I don't think they feel their jobs are dependent on it. It's more probably that Bush would rather fund any scientist that disproves global warming.
3. Sorry, but the measurements are quite conclusive. See link above. You just pull this out of your hat.
4. Global warming has a number of effects. Mainly higher temperatures and more precipitation, but it varies over countries and continents. If you think everything is contradicting itself, you just haven't studied it well.
It's only fair that the biggest polluter should be reducing the most. And as the USA emits 5.40 metric tons of CO2 per capita, and europe emits half of that (my country 2.39) having the SAME wealth, it is the USA that should reduce emissions the most. We should all be cutting emissions to keep this planet livable.
By the way, an inhabitant of China emits 0.6 tons of CO2 per year. China has more inhabitants, but the USA still emits twice the amount China does. Please keep these numbers in mind if you talk about China.
This data comes from research done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of North Dakota.
Probably not, because you need a (rather expensive) subscription to Nature to read the full article. I am able to read the article from here, so I can comment on your "analysis".
The findings are basically a statistical analysis of the probability of a summer like the one in 2003 to occur in different scenario's. It was concluded that there is a >90% confidence level that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave of this magnitude. Chances of rising global temperatures in the future were also investigated, as is mentioned in the abstract.
Simulations and measurements were utilized that run from 1900 to 2100.
I get sick and tired of people that tell me to draw my own conclusions, pointing from one media-hyped article to the next. If you want to draw your own conclusions, do your own research. I can give you this prediction, though: that your model will also give human-induced global warming as a fact, because they virtually all do
Furthermore, if you're talking about mediahypes, please don't pay attention to isolated scientists that storm in and bring atmosphere-devastating vulcanoes to the stage, or give very pretty graphs of relations of solar flares to rising temperatures. I could probably find a correlation with shoe sales in India as well! It doesn't mean there is a causal connection. Most of these people really have nothing to lose, and love the attention!
Not that I think this will convince anyone. It's much more fun if everybody just sticks to his own viewpoints and then we can have a nice discussion/flamewar about it. It's a lot easier that actually doing something about it.
France's opposition to the US war in Iraq had *nothing* to do with priciple and everything to do with
I know this is a troll, but let's have it anyways... This stubborn American viewpoint is quite surprising. Were you following the news just before the start of the war in Iraq? Are you aware that the opposition to the American invasion was stronger in Germany? That many European and other countries opposed? That there would have been more than one veto in the security council (China, possibly Russia), so that the US not even put down a resolution to vote for, to save face? To keep putting the blame for lack of support on the French has more to do with American bias than anything else.
P.S. If you think I am French, you have proven my point.
The temperature mentioned in your source is from satellite-measurements. These are complex measurements that need corrections to find the meaning of the data. In general these measurements do not compare well to surface-temperature measurements.
I agree that a nationwide recount is a nightmare, but my argument is this: quite probably the majority of American voters have voted for the other guy. That is not very democratic. The American voting system is well known to be one of the worst possible from a theoretical viewpoint.
Why don't you just check it? Wikipedia says:
Republicans have 50,456,002 votes
Democrats have 50,999,897 votes.
Nader has 2,882,955 votes, but that is yet another problem with the American voting system
Linux users can select text in a webpage and middle-click: this will take them to the first hit in Google with the selected text as search term. This is amazing!
So I propose a new internet game. Start from a page, e.g. slashdot, and try to reach a certain other page, say somethingawful.com, by just selecting text and middle-clicking. Clicking hyperlinks is not allowed! Have fun!
What you are missing is that the carbon is oxidized, it reacts with oxygen from the air: C+O2->CO2, thereby increasing the weight by a little bit more than a factor of three...
Why are people so anxious to express their concerns about warming the lake? This idea sounds like it would be very beneficial to the environment. Then there could be an issue with warming the lake. If there is, it could be quid pro quo.
But of course there is not. I have just read that it has a volume of 1639 km^3. That is a huge amount of heat capacity. If you put in numbers, there is not a way you can warm this lake if you wanted to. Plus, with a surface of 19,009 km^2, I think it will have no problems cooling itself in winter.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not have known this as a child, but you should be aware now: half of the Netherlands, where I live, is below sea-level. This does not mean we should abandon that part, it means we should take great care in protecting ourselves from the sea. In the US, there is a greater demand for "small government" compared to most of the rest of the world. As a result, the levees in New Orleans had a statistical likeliness of breaking once every 230 years. The Dutch dikes that protect our cities are made to break every 10000 years.
Hey I have a different idea. If you find this silly you can let me know.
Why don't we set *one* quota of pollution that can be exhausted per world citizen, irrespectable of where this citizen lives? Sounds like a fair plan, doesn't it? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that China and India have acknowledged to proceed in this manner and attack global warming on an equal basis.
In the Netherlands it is legal to make extra copies of media you own, or to make a copy of a CD or DVD you borrowed from a friend, neigbor, etc. The copyright holders are compensated through a tax, in a rather obscure way. It is illegal to sell copyrighted work, or make copies and give away the copies yourself. All this is explained (in Dutch) by Stichting De Thuiskopie
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation were the same in Denmark.
I'm aware of them enough to draw my conclusions. These 25 points of the NSDAP you present were written in 1920. As you know, the nazi-party came into power through democratic elections. The NSDAP presented themselves as the party that would take the best care of the German citizens, hence also the "socialist" in their name. Hitler exploited the social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living.
Once in power, some of these points were quickly abandoned. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. Remember also that Hitler had a deep resentment of communism.
These things are explained more elaborately at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
I know you're joking, but...
you do not that national socialism as it existed in '30 and '40 in Germany had nothing to do with socialism, right? It is a simple misnomer. Fascism pretty much excludes socialism because it is based on the rule of the strongest, a small elite governing the masses. Hitler had very little of a socialist viewpoint and neither had his supporters.
From TFA:
It's a relatively unremarkable space rock...
When the artic ice caps start to melt, then we can worry.
Funny that you mention this. This has been the trends for the past decades. See for example: this.
I quote: Ice in the Arctic Ocean has already thinned by 40% in the past 40 years, according to the results of submarine surveys.
Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics, 37, 173-199.
Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. Journal of Climate, 16, 206-223.
Anyways, the graphs are not all that different. And both do NOT support your claim:In fact, for 30 years between 1940 and 1970 the temperature dropped all that it had gained in the past 50 years.
Global temperature has risen from 1900 to 1940. Between 1940 and 1970 it did not rise or fall, from 1970 onwards it has risen. See this if you want to see it for yourself.
Please check out this faq if you make claims about noisy and ambiguous data.
I also disagree with your other points:
1. A lot of theories were popular and well accepted before they are disproven. True, but a lot more theories are accepted and turn out to be true. Also, a LOT of theories are not well accepted and turn out to be wrong. If you are not a climate scientist, this cannot be an argument AGIANST global warming.
2. As a university professor, you know that a theory is only as strong as the arguments that support it. If a paper is flawed or can be disproven, a scientist would jump at the chance to tear it to pieces. While it's true that climate scientist are focussed on global warming, I don't think they feel their jobs are dependent on it. It's more probably that Bush would rather fund any scientist that disproves global warming.
3. Sorry, but the measurements are quite conclusive. See link above. You just pull this out of your hat.
4. Global warming has a number of effects. Mainly higher temperatures and more precipitation, but it varies over countries and continents. If you think everything is contradicting itself, you just haven't studied it well.
By the way, an inhabitant of China emits 0.6 tons of CO2 per year. China has more inhabitants, but the USA still emits twice the amount China does. Please keep these numbers in mind if you talk about China.
This data comes from research done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of North Dakota.
Interesting, but I don't beleive it's true. Do you have a reference to back this up?
That's a pathetic argument, if it were an argument.
Have you read the article?
Probably not, because you need a (rather expensive) subscription to Nature to read the full article. I am able to read the article from here, so I can comment on your "analysis".
The findings are basically a statistical analysis of the probability of a summer like the one in 2003 to occur in different scenario's. It was concluded that there is a >90% confidence level that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave of this magnitude. Chances of rising global temperatures in the future were also investigated, as is mentioned in the abstract. Simulations and measurements were utilized that run from 1900 to 2100.I get sick and tired of people that tell me to draw my own conclusions, pointing from one media-hyped article to the next. If you want to draw your own conclusions, do your own research. I can give you this prediction, though: that your model will also give human-induced global warming as a fact, because they virtually all do
Furthermore, if you're talking about mediahypes, please don't pay attention to isolated scientists that storm in and bring atmosphere-devastating vulcanoes to the stage, or give very pretty graphs of relations of solar flares to rising temperatures. I could probably find a correlation with shoe sales in India as well! It doesn't mean there is a causal connection. Most of these people really have nothing to lose, and love the attention!
Not that I think this will convince anyone. It's much more fun if everybody just sticks to his own viewpoints and then we can have a nice discussion/flamewar about it. It's a lot easier that actually doing something about it.
I know this is a troll, but let's have it anyways... This stubborn American viewpoint is quite surprising. Were you following the news just before the start of the war in Iraq? Are you aware that the opposition to the American invasion was stronger in Germany? That many European and other countries opposed? That there would have been more than one veto in the security council (China, possibly Russia), so that the US not even put down a resolution to vote for, to save face? To keep putting the blame for lack of support on the French has more to do with American bias than anything else.
P.S. If you think I am French, you have proven my point.
The temperature mentioned in your source is from satellite-measurements. These are complex measurements that need corrections to find the meaning of the data. In general these measurements do not compare well to surface-temperature measurements.
You can compare with the surface measurements here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
You can see there is no evidence for global warming until about 1975. After that, the increase in temperature has been quite significant.
*Sigh* I was just saying that one shouldn't be lazy when making statements such as "maybe Bush would also have won in a popular vote."
Now you do the same kind of thing. You don't trust the numbers? Well go check them then! Here for example: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm. The numbers are right.
I agree that a nationwide recount is a nightmare, but my argument is this: quite probably the majority of American voters have voted for the other guy. That is not very democratic. The American voting system is well known to be one of the worst possible from a theoretical viewpoint.
Why don't you just check it? Wikipedia says: Republicans have 50,456,002 votes Democrats have 50,999,897 votes. Nader has 2,882,955 votes, but that is yet another problem with the American voting system
Linux users can select text in a webpage and middle-click: this will take them to the first hit in Google with the selected text as search term. This is amazing!
So I propose a new internet game. Start from a page, e.g. slashdot, and try to reach a certain other page, say somethingawful.com, by just selecting text and middle-clicking. Clicking hyperlinks is not allowed! Have fun!
What you are missing is that the carbon is oxidized, it reacts with oxygen from the air: C+O2->CO2, thereby increasing the weight by a little bit more than a factor of three...
Why are people so anxious to express their concerns about warming the lake? This idea sounds like it would be very beneficial to the environment. Then there could be an issue with warming the lake. If there is, it could be quid pro quo. But of course there is not. I have just read that it has a volume of 1639 km^3. That is a huge amount of heat capacity. If you put in numbers, there is not a way you can warm this lake if you wanted to. Plus, with a surface of 19,009 km^2, I think it will have no problems cooling itself in winter.