To be fair, if that's how the Musk projects remain (expensive ego trips), then I could agree with your assessment. But I think there's reasonable evidence that Musk is working on some serious economies of scale to reduce the per unit cost of stuff. The work on battery production and technology has been a tremendous boon to non rich people. I mean when the price per kWh of storage was (near) $1000 in 2010, $600 in 2013, $540 in 2014, $350 in 2015, and $270 in 2016, that's some serious advancement. The idea that you could create a battery pack (3 kWh just as an example, YMMV) to store energy for a home for under $800 is something that should boggle your mind, considering that the same system would have cost $3000 just 6 years earlier.
I'm not a major fanboy, but I do think there is some good that's come from Musk, even if other projects turn out to be vanity ego trips.
So Watergate should never have gone past a year? "One year of Watergate is enough. - Nixon
How long do you think Benghazi was investigated? Iran Contra? The unibomber, Enron, The Olympic park bombing. One year is *nothing* in a complex or tricky investigation. What, they should just give up after a year? Investigations don't work like that. They never have.
Nope, that's not the point. AGW doesn't care if you're scared of it or not. It's the description of a hypothesis that has validated fairly well up to this point. I mean, you don't throw out the entire GUT because a new particle doesn't quite match the expected eV values, you look at what you're missing and you tweak the model to fit the new information. I suppose you could claim, 'OMG GUT is wrong, we need to ignore the entire theory.' Never mind that it's actually pretty good overall.
Same concept applies to AGW. It's not perfect, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. But given what we know up to this point, it does a reasonably good job with an incredibly complex system.
If you want to claim that adding GT's of carbon into the atmosphere has no impact, just look at physics. CO2 absorbs at certain bandwidths of the EM spectrum. Some of those bands would otherwise be transparent. As you increase the levels of CO2 the absorption rate increases. This means the energy budget has been increased in the system. That extra energy will have to manifest in some manner. If you don't think it can show up as increases in global temperatures, that's fine, but it would help if you could show some studies that demonstrate that increasing the energy budget of the Earth won't increase the temperature.
Now, if you want to argue that increasing CO2 levels won't increase the absorption rates, then please, by all means, write or cite the papers that can make the case, I'll be *very* curious to see the evidence. Though I suspect it'll make as much sense as 'Time Cube' does.
That some people hype it up as 'OMG we're all going to die' doesn't invalidate the fundamental physics.
I'm willing to bet you haven't looked at a single paper in the climatology field. If you're so certain that the data is wrong, then take the raw information and show us.
In fact, here's some links to get you started.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
and for the archives
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/has/...
Here's your chance to get your name in lights! And with the current administration, you'll get so much airtime, you won't know what to do with yourself with all the money climatologists make.:)
Isn't that like saying no new wealth is formed from any lawsuit or arbitration? Class action or not? I don't see why the creation of wealth is relevant to the issue. A civil suit is an effort to make an injured party whole. In this case the alleged injury is due to the negligence or reckless disregard of Equifax, the effort to make whole is about Equifax reimbursing any victims that can be successfully shown to have harmed by their negligence. Equifax would have the option of suing the individuals who stole the information from their system. It might seem like that's pointless, but that's not the responsibility of the individuals suing Equifax, unless Equifax can convince them that Equifax was not negligent and that the individuals should join Equifax in using the people who stole or used the information.
Class action lawsuits were designed to give individuals more power and to equalize the playing field against corporations, sometimes they work well (see asbestos), sometimes they don't. But it's one of the better tools an individual has for recourse against corporations.
After all accuweather had previously tried to convince Congress to gut the NWS so they could make money: http://www.politico.com/story/...
So the idea that Accuweather would do something shady isn't without precedent.
I am curious where climate models are showing a four sigma error. It must be nice to make a claim without backing it up with some hard data.
I'm open to the idea that models can be in error, but without showing where the errors are so dramatic, it's hard to credit you with anything insightful.
Models aren't perfect, and we have an imperfect understanding of the interactions and feedbacks in the earth system. That doesn't make the underlying science invalid. At worst, it is incomplete and we need more study. Instead, people are too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, 'fake science' you can do better than that. Right?
There were around 2.5 million papers are published in 2015.
So if you are going to freak out over this, you're probably the same type of guy who thinks it safer to drive a car than fly somewhere.
Or maybe they should go and do a point by point examination and call out the bullshit.
An example, "all scientists believe carbon emissions by humans are the main cause of global warming." is false.
But "I believe all scientists believe carbon emissions by humans are the main cause of global warming." is a fact. Mind you, the belief is incorrect, but if that's what you believe, then by definition, it's a fact.
And yes, this is an extreme case to illustrate why organizations like politifact have such a hard time with articles, propaganda, and chain letters. Something can be technically true while still being misleading or wrong.
Dismissing it as all judging opinion is ignoring all the work and effort that goes into trying to tease out the validity of articles and the accuracy of their conclusions.
Ok, if I agree not every disaster is a direct result of Athtoprogenic Global Warming (AGW), can you agree that there are a series of trends that point towards increased extreme meteorological events. And that those events are most simply explain by the increase in CO2? For example, take a look at the number of record highs versus the number of record lows. Or alternately, take a look at the trend of pH in the oceans. You can also look at other events such as the northward movememt of the centers of Bermuda and Pacific High pressures. Sure, it's *possible* that each of these examples (and dozens of others that are beyond the scope of this post), but the hypotheses that have best withstood testing remain the ones that include AGW and various GHG. If you think they are wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of corporations that would pay really really good money for a hypothesis that works to explain the events without changes im GHG as a factor.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Temperature and pressure (and magnetic field strength and orientation) have both been accurately measured for at least 150+years (it's longer, but for purposes of your post, 150 years works). Just because they didn't have the Internet doesn't mean they were clueless savages.
Heck you can also get a gauge of global temperatures using a variety of proxies, Tree rings, O16/O18 ratios, heck Dr. Kim Cobb has been doing some fascinating work using coral growth to reconstruct temperature history.
All of these can be correlated together to create a pretty comprehensive Temperature history.
If you still have doubts, enroll in a paleoclimatology and paleooceanography class, learn the techniques and concepts involved in temperature reconstruction.
It's some really cool stuff.
You aren't accounting for CO2 absorption by the oceans. Partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the CO2 concentration in the ocean (Henry's Law). IIRC, back of the envelope calculations shows about 40% of all CO2 output has been absorbed by the Oceans (assume an average mixing layer of 60 meters, and 70% of the surface area of the earth, also assume the atmosphere is well mixed for our estimate) you can hold ocean temperature constant to make life simpler, or you can increase the temp by a small amount to better refine the estimate. As for calculating the amount of CO2 released, we have pretty good estimates of Carbor released. Take that mass, convert to moles of CO2. Get the total mass of the atmosphere, the scale height is around 8 kilometers (if you want to determine the scale height yourself, be my guest) . Then use the average molecular mass of the atmosphere which is around 28.9 (dry atmosphere, accounting for water vapor is a hassle and for back of the envelope calculations, you can add it in if you want) the density of air is 1.3 kg/m^3) We now have the volume of the atmosphere and the densite. So we can calculate the mass of the atmosphere to compare against the mass of CO2 produced to get an estimate of the increase in CO2 for that time frame. It's not difficult to do and get a reasonable approximation. You'll find that the estimated increase in CO2 is greater than the measured increase, because of ocean absorption. And then that CO2 increase drives other reactions that end up lowering the pH of the oceans, which is overall bad for creatures that make shells. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
No, the $15K is to justify dropping the case by rending the whole situation moot and save the FBI from having a court decision against them. A court decision against them would resonate for years, so you drop the case, avoid that precedent. Then pick a different case against a company who doesn't have great lawyers. Win that case, and there you go, precedent that favors you.
Seriously? Do you even know why CO2 is a GHG? And if you say it's not, then please explain to me how CO2 doesn't absorb in regions of the IR spectrum that are otherwise transparent.
Do you know how ENSO works, and why wind stress forcing from ENSO can help sequester heat into the intermediate and Deep waters of the western Pacific during normal, and with greater intensity during LA Nina years? Do you understand how that slowing of the walker circulation can reverse that downwelling and pull all that sequestered heat back to the surface where it is then available for the lower troposphere.
Look, there are a number of climate skeptics in the Earth and Atmospheric sciences of various institutions, but even the out skeptical accept that *something* is happening. Hell I even managed to get Dr Judith Curry to agree with me in 2014, that the next few years would tell the story. If temps remained relatively level, then we were missing something. But if temps resumed their March upward, then even she said that would give strong evidence that the current models were more right than wrong.
You want to challenge the science, go for it. You want to derive your own models and see what happens, go for it! Otherwise you're just flapping your gums and wasting time while the adults are trying to figure out what the hell is going on and what we can do to further improve the models and better understand how bad we are fucking the planet up, and maybe, convince enough people that, while mankind won't die off if the temps go up 5 degrees C (and just for you, that's 9 degrees Fahrenheit), you'll see some massive displacement of atmospheric patterns, wildlife, human population displacement, crop disruptions as regions of best growth of certain crops shift dramatically.
So yeah, I doubt you'll listen, but maybe other people who read the thread will take it on themselves to look deeper, learn more, and decide based on accurate information.
Things are grim enough I don't need to bias a damn thing to make my case.
Of note, the use of GPS for surveying sea surface height has proposed or experimented with for a number of years (Cardellach, Estel; Martin-Neira, Manuel., April 2010). It might be because they've moved beyond 'proof of concept', but I think to say they discovered it is a bit strong. I've even found papers detailing the experimental use of GPS satellites to determine sea surface heights as far back as 2001 (Martin-Neira, M; Caparrini, M; Font-Rossello, J; Lannelongue, S; Vallmitjana, C S, 2001). The bggest change might be a reduction of errors, going from (30cm errors in 2000 to 5 - 15cm in 2009. If they've managed to further reduce the size of the errors then they're onto something really big. If they've just found a more efficient method of measuring sea surface heights in the open ocean, well that's pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's quite a game breaker.
As far as sea surface rise being a hoax, that's a silly statement, after all the empirical evidence is pretty strong, We have long term gauges that have been operating for centuries in a number of areas, and excepting for regions of crustal rebound, raw sea level rise is consistent with expectations if additional heat was being pumped into and inceasing the depth of the thermocline..
The volume of water coming from continental ice caps Greenland, Antarctica), will increase the volume of the ocean in a 1:1 ratio. We're not talking about melting sea ice. It would be like taking an ice cube and setting on top of a funnel over a glass of water. The ice melts and flows into the glass. Raising the level of water.
Incidentally, it also cools the water, but because the volume change of water is a very small fraction compared to the volume change from the melting ice.
For comparison, the average ocean depth is about 3000 meters, if the entire Greenland ice cap suddenly melted and flowed into the ocean, it would raise the ocean by ~2 meters or so. So you're looking at a 0.015
Here, let me get you started...
A nice climate archive to start
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-...
If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data:
http://mesowest.utah.edu/
Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...
And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.
Well El Nino is actually a change in the Walker circulation brought on by a relaxation (or in extreme cases a reversal) of the trade winds over the equatorial Pacific region. This let's the water that had been piling up in the west pacific begin shifting back to the east. Which shifts the convection from the heated water to the east as well. You also have the upwelling along the west coast of south America also slow or cease.
From there the changes in SSTs and convection will shift the various weather patterns. It's something of a cascading effect, which shows up most in the winter time air for the US.
El Nino (and LA Nina) are more than weather, at least in a classic sense that it takes a lot of work to take out the shorter term variabilities to reveal the long term pattern. And when you do, you're left with a 6 to 9 month El Nino phase and 2 to 6 for the neutral and LA Nina phase.
Now one of the next questions trying to be ironed out, what effect will the change in climate have on the walker circulation and the ENSO system.
NK with ICBMs is a big concern because there is doubt that the NK leaders are 'rational actors.' So normal considerations like self preservation of the country or people may not apply.
Surely you must realize that satellites do not measure temperature directly. Instead they measure various wavelengths of light, and then use a weighting system to interpret the data Of note, most of the spectral readings are of the lower troposphere and *not* the surface. Additionally, there is a major issue of contamination from cloud cover when trying to use satellite data. That you put forth the idea that there are no revision or interpolation or adjustments shows an appalling lack of understanding of exactly how satellite meteorology works.
But "Move or Die" can mean many things. First you can move your body: exercising in the simplest ways. Walk a mile when things are slow. If you have time to do push ups and sits ups at work, then you have time to walk as well. Work out every day you aren't at work. Accept that your life is about Work and working out and that you don't have time for anything else. If something else is getting in the way of working out, then accept that working out isn't important enough. unless you're willing to do the second or third move.
Next "Move where you work": you have to decide if you wish to continue working at a company that appears to have no concern about your physical or mental health and well being. The Company may not care if you're burned out and dying from heart disease in 20 years, but you should be. If you can't do the first or third "Move" you have to decide if the loss of physical health is worth the financial compensation you get.
Finally: "Move where you live": If the first two options aren't viable, then perhaps you should consider that a 90 minute commute is insane under these circumstances. I personally have an hour commute after a 9 hour day. And I'm seriously considering moving much closer. If you're in a house that's devalued because of the economy, then it sucks, but you have to decide if the financial hit you take from moving (and remember, you'll save a ton on gas every month not driving that 100+ mile trip every day).
In the end if your health is that important for you, you'll have to figure out what sort of move you want to make, and if none of them are viable, then accept you'll be slowly dying until you change your mind.
Texas has a very strict Write-in policy. If you haven't declared as a write in within 70 days of the election, you can't be a write-in. if this were to be upheld, the only person people would be permitted to vote for would be... Bob Barr.
I understand what you're saying. But would not a valid remedy be throwing out the provisions that grant retroactive immunity. Thus permitting the lawsuits to go forward. Granting immunity for an act that is later determined to be unconstitutional would also invalidate the act of granting immunity.
It'd be no different than a police force shutting down a news paper for a trumped up reason, then is sued. Even if congress were to grant retroactive immunity to the police, it is effectively permitting a violation of the constitution. The supreme court would toss the law out on its ear and let the suit go on, if congress tried to pass another law like it, the supreme court should jump on it and grant and expedited hearing and slap it down quickly.
The situation isn't exactly the same I know, but the remedy should be similar. it's the only realistic way to make the injured party whole.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, if that's how the Musk projects remain (expensive ego trips), then I could agree with your assessment. But I think there's reasonable evidence that Musk is working on some serious economies of scale to reduce the per unit cost of stuff. The work on battery production and technology has been a tremendous boon to non rich people. I mean when the price per kWh of storage was (near) $1000 in 2010, $600 in 2013, $540 in 2014, $350 in 2015, and $270 in 2016, that's some serious advancement. The idea that you could create a battery pack (3 kWh just as an example, YMMV) to store energy for a home for under $800 is something that should boggle your mind, considering that the same system would have cost $3000 just 6 years earlier.
I'm not a major fanboy, but I do think there is some good that's come from Musk, even if other projects turn out to be vanity ego trips.
How long do you think Benghazi was investigated? Iran Contra? The unibomber, Enron, The Olympic park bombing. One year is *nothing* in a complex or tricky investigation. What, they should just give up after a year? Investigations don't work like that. They never have.
Same concept applies to AGW. It's not perfect, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. But given what we know up to this point, it does a reasonably good job with an incredibly complex system.
If you want to claim that adding GT's of carbon into the atmosphere has no impact, just look at physics. CO2 absorbs at certain bandwidths of the EM spectrum. Some of those bands would otherwise be transparent. As you increase the levels of CO2 the absorption rate increases. This means the energy budget has been increased in the system. That extra energy will have to manifest in some manner. If you don't think it can show up as increases in global temperatures, that's fine, but it would help if you could show some studies that demonstrate that increasing the energy budget of the Earth won't increase the temperature.
Now, if you want to argue that increasing CO2 levels won't increase the absorption rates, then please, by all means, write or cite the papers that can make the case, I'll be *very* curious to see the evidence. Though I suspect it'll make as much sense as 'Time Cube' does.
That some people hype it up as 'OMG we're all going to die' doesn't invalidate the fundamental physics.
I'm willing to bet you haven't looked at a single paper in the climatology field. If you're so certain that the data is wrong, then take the raw information and show us. In fact, here's some links to get you started. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ and for the archives https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/has/... Here's your chance to get your name in lights! And with the current administration, you'll get so much airtime, you won't know what to do with yourself with all the money climatologists make. :)
Isn't that like saying no new wealth is formed from any lawsuit or arbitration? Class action or not? I don't see why the creation of wealth is relevant to the issue. A civil suit is an effort to make an injured party whole. In this case the alleged injury is due to the negligence or reckless disregard of Equifax, the effort to make whole is about Equifax reimbursing any victims that can be successfully shown to have harmed by their negligence. Equifax would have the option of suing the individuals who stole the information from their system. It might seem like that's pointless, but that's not the responsibility of the individuals suing Equifax, unless Equifax can convince them that Equifax was not negligent and that the individuals should join Equifax in using the people who stole or used the information. Class action lawsuits were designed to give individuals more power and to equalize the playing field against corporations, sometimes they work well (see asbestos), sometimes they don't. But it's one of the better tools an individual has for recourse against corporations.
After all accuweather had previously tried to convince Congress to gut the NWS so they could make money: http://www.politico.com/story/... So the idea that Accuweather would do something shady isn't without precedent.
I am curious where climate models are showing a four sigma error. It must be nice to make a claim without backing it up with some hard data. I'm open to the idea that models can be in error, but without showing where the errors are so dramatic, it's hard to credit you with anything insightful. Models aren't perfect, and we have an imperfect understanding of the interactions and feedbacks in the earth system. That doesn't make the underlying science invalid. At worst, it is incomplete and we need more study. Instead, people are too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, 'fake science' you can do better than that. Right?
There were around 2.5 million papers are published in 2015. So if you are going to freak out over this, you're probably the same type of guy who thinks it safer to drive a car than fly somewhere.
Or maybe they should go and do a point by point examination and call out the bullshit. An example, "all scientists believe carbon emissions by humans are the main cause of global warming." is false. But "I believe all scientists believe carbon emissions by humans are the main cause of global warming." is a fact. Mind you, the belief is incorrect, but if that's what you believe, then by definition, it's a fact. And yes, this is an extreme case to illustrate why organizations like politifact have such a hard time with articles, propaganda, and chain letters. Something can be technically true while still being misleading or wrong. Dismissing it as all judging opinion is ignoring all the work and effort that goes into trying to tease out the validity of articles and the accuracy of their conclusions.
Ok, if I agree not every disaster is a direct result of Athtoprogenic Global Warming (AGW), can you agree that there are a series of trends that point towards increased extreme meteorological events. And that those events are most simply explain by the increase in CO2? For example, take a look at the number of record highs versus the number of record lows. Or alternately, take a look at the trend of pH in the oceans. You can also look at other events such as the northward movememt of the centers of Bermuda and Pacific High pressures. Sure, it's *possible* that each of these examples (and dozens of others that are beyond the scope of this post), but the hypotheses that have best withstood testing remain the ones that include AGW and various GHG. If you think they are wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of corporations that would pay really really good money for a hypothesis that works to explain the events without changes im GHG as a factor.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Temperature and pressure (and magnetic field strength and orientation) have both been accurately measured for at least 150+years (it's longer, but for purposes of your post, 150 years works). Just because they didn't have the Internet doesn't mean they were clueless savages. Heck you can also get a gauge of global temperatures using a variety of proxies, Tree rings, O16/O18 ratios, heck Dr. Kim Cobb has been doing some fascinating work using coral growth to reconstruct temperature history. All of these can be correlated together to create a pretty comprehensive Temperature history. If you still have doubts, enroll in a paleoclimatology and paleooceanography class, learn the techniques and concepts involved in temperature reconstruction. It's some really cool stuff.
You aren't accounting for CO2 absorption by the oceans. Partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the CO2 concentration in the ocean (Henry's Law). IIRC, back of the envelope calculations shows about 40% of all CO2 output has been absorbed by the Oceans (assume an average mixing layer of 60 meters, and 70% of the surface area of the earth, also assume the atmosphere is well mixed for our estimate) you can hold ocean temperature constant to make life simpler, or you can increase the temp by a small amount to better refine the estimate. As for calculating the amount of CO2 released, we have pretty good estimates of Carbor released. Take that mass, convert to moles of CO2. Get the total mass of the atmosphere, the scale height is around 8 kilometers (if you want to determine the scale height yourself, be my guest) . Then use the average molecular mass of the atmosphere which is around 28.9 (dry atmosphere, accounting for water vapor is a hassle and for back of the envelope calculations, you can add it in if you want) the density of air is 1.3 kg/m^3) We now have the volume of the atmosphere and the densite. So we can calculate the mass of the atmosphere to compare against the mass of CO2 produced to get an estimate of the increase in CO2 for that time frame. It's not difficult to do and get a reasonable approximation. You'll find that the estimated increase in CO2 is greater than the measured increase, because of ocean absorption. And then that CO2 increase drives other reactions that end up lowering the pH of the oceans, which is overall bad for creatures that make shells. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
No, the $15K is to justify dropping the case by rending the whole situation moot and save the FBI from having a court decision against them. A court decision against them would resonate for years, so you drop the case, avoid that precedent. Then pick a different case against a company who doesn't have great lawyers. Win that case, and there you go, precedent that favors you.
Seriously? Do you even know why CO2 is a GHG? And if you say it's not, then please explain to me how CO2 doesn't absorb in regions of the IR spectrum that are otherwise transparent. Do you know how ENSO works, and why wind stress forcing from ENSO can help sequester heat into the intermediate and Deep waters of the western Pacific during normal, and with greater intensity during LA Nina years? Do you understand how that slowing of the walker circulation can reverse that downwelling and pull all that sequestered heat back to the surface where it is then available for the lower troposphere. Look, there are a number of climate skeptics in the Earth and Atmospheric sciences of various institutions, but even the out skeptical accept that *something* is happening. Hell I even managed to get Dr Judith Curry to agree with me in 2014, that the next few years would tell the story. If temps remained relatively level, then we were missing something. But if temps resumed their March upward, then even she said that would give strong evidence that the current models were more right than wrong. You want to challenge the science, go for it. You want to derive your own models and see what happens, go for it! Otherwise you're just flapping your gums and wasting time while the adults are trying to figure out what the hell is going on and what we can do to further improve the models and better understand how bad we are fucking the planet up, and maybe, convince enough people that, while mankind won't die off if the temps go up 5 degrees C (and just for you, that's 9 degrees Fahrenheit), you'll see some massive displacement of atmospheric patterns, wildlife, human population displacement, crop disruptions as regions of best growth of certain crops shift dramatically. So yeah, I doubt you'll listen, but maybe other people who read the thread will take it on themselves to look deeper, learn more, and decide based on accurate information. Things are grim enough I don't need to bias a damn thing to make my case.
Of note, the use of GPS for surveying sea surface height has proposed or experimented with for a number of years (Cardellach, Estel; Martin-Neira, Manuel., April 2010). It might be because they've moved beyond 'proof of concept', but I think to say they discovered it is a bit strong. I've even found papers detailing the experimental use of GPS satellites to determine sea surface heights as far back as 2001 (Martin-Neira, M; Caparrini, M; Font-Rossello, J; Lannelongue, S; Vallmitjana, C S, 2001). The bggest change might be a reduction of errors, going from (30cm errors in 2000 to 5 - 15cm in 2009. If they've managed to further reduce the size of the errors then they're onto something really big. If they've just found a more efficient method of measuring sea surface heights in the open ocean, well that's pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's quite a game breaker.
As far as sea surface rise being a hoax, that's a silly statement, after all the empirical evidence is pretty strong, We have long term gauges that have been operating for centuries in a number of areas, and excepting for regions of crustal rebound, raw sea level rise is consistent with expectations if additional heat was being pumped into and inceasing the depth of the thermocline..
The volume of water coming from continental ice caps Greenland, Antarctica), will increase the volume of the ocean in a 1:1 ratio. We're not talking about melting sea ice. It would be like taking an ice cube and setting on top of a funnel over a glass of water. The ice melts and flows into the glass. Raising the level of water. Incidentally, it also cools the water, but because the volume change of water is a very small fraction compared to the volume change from the melting ice. For comparison, the average ocean depth is about 3000 meters, if the entire Greenland ice cap suddenly melted and flowed into the ocean, it would raise the ocean by ~2 meters or so. So you're looking at a 0.015
Here, let me get you started... A nice climate archive to start https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-... If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data: http://mesowest.utah.edu/ Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.
Well El Nino is actually a change in the Walker circulation brought on by a relaxation (or in extreme cases a reversal) of the trade winds over the equatorial Pacific region. This let's the water that had been piling up in the west pacific begin shifting back to the east. Which shifts the convection from the heated water to the east as well. You also have the upwelling along the west coast of south America also slow or cease. From there the changes in SSTs and convection will shift the various weather patterns. It's something of a cascading effect, which shows up most in the winter time air for the US. El Nino (and LA Nina) are more than weather, at least in a classic sense that it takes a lot of work to take out the shorter term variabilities to reveal the long term pattern. And when you do, you're left with a 6 to 9 month El Nino phase and 2 to 6 for the neutral and LA Nina phase. Now one of the next questions trying to be ironed out, what effect will the change in climate have on the walker circulation and the ENSO system.
NK with ICBMs is a big concern because there is doubt that the NK leaders are 'rational actors.' So normal considerations like self preservation of the country or people may not apply.
Surely you must realize that satellites do not measure temperature directly. Instead they measure various wavelengths of light, and then use a weighting system to interpret the data Of note, most of the spectral readings are of the lower troposphere and *not* the surface. Additionally, there is a major issue of contamination from cloud cover when trying to use satellite data. That you put forth the idea that there are no revision or interpolation or adjustments shows an appalling lack of understanding of exactly how satellite meteorology works.
But "Move or Die" can mean many things. First you can move your body: exercising in the simplest ways. Walk a mile when things are slow. If you have time to do push ups and sits ups at work, then you have time to walk as well. Work out every day you aren't at work. Accept that your life is about Work and working out and that you don't have time for anything else. If something else is getting in the way of working out, then accept that working out isn't important enough. unless you're willing to do the second or third move.
Next "Move where you work": you have to decide if you wish to continue working at a company that appears to have no concern about your physical or mental health and well being. The Company may not care if you're burned out and dying from heart disease in 20 years, but you should be. If you can't do the first or third "Move" you have to decide if the loss of physical health is worth the financial compensation you get.
Finally: "Move where you live": If the first two options aren't viable, then perhaps you should consider that a 90 minute commute is insane under these circumstances. I personally have an hour commute after a 9 hour day. And I'm seriously considering moving much closer. If you're in a house that's devalued because of the economy, then it sucks, but you have to decide if the financial hit you take from moving (and remember, you'll save a ton on gas every month not driving that 100+ mile trip every day).
In the end if your health is that important for you, you'll have to figure out what sort of move you want to make, and if none of them are viable, then accept you'll be slowly dying until you change your mind.
Texas has a very strict Write-in policy. If you haven't declared as a write in within 70 days of the election, you can't be a write-in. if this were to be upheld, the only person people would be permitted to vote for would be ... Bob Barr.
You're confusing trademark enforcement with Copyright. Selective copyright has never been a problem in the courts.
Good thought, but they're two very distinctive concepts.
I understand what you're saying. But would not a valid remedy be throwing out the provisions that grant retroactive immunity. Thus permitting the lawsuits to go forward. Granting immunity for an act that is later determined to be unconstitutional would also invalidate the act of granting immunity.
It'd be no different than a police force shutting down a news paper for a trumped up reason, then is sued. Even if congress were to grant retroactive immunity to the police, it is effectively permitting a violation of the constitution. The supreme court would toss the law out on its ear and let the suit go on, if congress tried to pass another law like it, the supreme court should jump on it and grant and expedited hearing and slap it down quickly.
The situation isn't exactly the same I know, but the remedy should be similar. it's the only realistic way to make the injured party whole.
This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
Does that not mean that passing a law to validate such violations, even after the fact, is still a violation of the 4th amendment?
Now, of course since there's no one liable, good luck getting standing. Though I suppose anyone with a lawsuit pending would still have standing.