|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 14 2016 08:12 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the obvious point of the article that apparently a significant number of you (notably Gorsameth) are missing: that article shows that there's a risk that evidence of a systemic, democrat-initiated voted fraud may be found in Detroit. It doesn't matter who initiated the recount. Nor does it matter what Trump of Republicans said previously about voter fraud.
I didn't miss that, but regret is commonly used in relation to something someone feels responsible for (or for not preventing). People don't generally say things like, "I regret that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid" even if it's technically a valid thing to say. My response still seems totally valid for the reasonable interpretation of what you said.
|
On December 14 2016 08:33 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 08:12 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the obvious point of the article that apparently a significant number of you (notably Gorsameth) are missing: that article shows that there's a risk that evidence of a systemic, democrat-initiated voted fraud may be found in Detroit. It doesn't matter who initiated the recount. Nor does it matter what Trump of Republicans said previously about voter fraud. I didn't miss that, but regret is commonly used in relation to something someone feels responsible for (or for not preventing). People don't generally say things like, "I regret that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid" even if it's technically a valid thing to say. My response still seems totally valid for the reasonable interpretation of what you said.
Regret isn't necessarily reflexive, but whatever. Semantics are a bore.
|
On December 14 2016 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 08:33 Logo wrote:On December 14 2016 08:12 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the obvious point of the article that apparently a significant number of you (notably Gorsameth) are missing: that article shows that there's a risk that evidence of a systemic, democrat-initiated voted fraud may be found in Detroit. It doesn't matter who initiated the recount. Nor does it matter what Trump of Republicans said previously about voter fraud. I didn't miss that, but regret is commonly used in relation to something someone feels responsible for (or for not preventing). People don't generally say things like, "I regret that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid" even if it's technically a valid thing to say. My response still seems totally valid for the reasonable interpretation of what you said. Regret isn't necessarily reflexive, but whatever. Semantics are a bore.
Which I said in my post... But was pointing out that it most often is and people will assume such unless it's obviously not reflexive.
|
On December 14 2016 04:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 02:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 14 2016 00:58 Sadist wrote:On December 14 2016 00:50 Falling wrote:
I suppose there is a simple hypothesis: as a society becomes more egalitarian are there greater or lesser differences in job choices between the genders? That is as the barriers of entry are brought down, is there a slow move to 50-50 across every job, or are there even more pronounced differences? Our Scandinavian posters will have to correct me, but if we assume they are among the most egalitarian societies, we find the opposite of our expectations: greater differences, not less. (Unless there are some hidden issues that we don't know about- hence our Scandinavian posters.) But supposing that find holds true, this isn't really a bad thing. If every person has the freedom to choose what they want, and it turns out that doesn't equal 50-50 in every single occupation, that's not bad, but good because they got to choose what they wanted. There are some people that will target 50 / 50 no matter what. They will argue bias in society in the way people were raised and their environment explains why the genders chose what they chose. This is the rabbit hole of social sciences and trying to hit a specific target. Some people dont even want to acknowledge gender/sex at all The false assumption is that people have (a) equal opportunity and hence (b) only go for the roles they want. The truth is that (a) people are not equal for many reasons which means that (b) people go for the roles they can get. Assuming the latter, the spread of the population not being even reveals the biases that prevents people from pursuing what they want. This is true for women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc... Because of your base assumption, the only evidence that you would ever accept that there is no bias would be if we had an even distribution of people of gender, skin color, disability level, ......etc. This quickly results in a quota system where you can put each person into a nice little box. What about skinny vs fat people? Good looking vs ugly? People with black hair vs blonde hair? If your presumption is bias there will always be something you can nit pick until you get to your magical even distribution. And what then? You tell a black transgender chinese person they cant be an engineer because you already have your quota for black transgender chinese engineers and it screws up your distribution?
Quotas are neither the solution nor the request. The discrepancy is merely a side effect of the problem, not the cause. To fix the side effect without fixing the cause just means the problem will simply continue and evolve.
The West has huge problems with racism, misogyny, and classism. The side effects of these issues produces unwanted consequences for everyone except middle and upper class white males. And even lower class white males usually have it better than their non-white and non-male peers; albeit barely.
But they are just that, side effects.
If water is boiling over you don't fix it by shoving down a cover and holding on for dear life. All that does is cause so much pressure to build up over time. You fix it by turning off the stove. The same is true for racism, sexism, and classism.
|
One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source
|
Watched a little bit of the rally from Trump's Revenge and Gloating Tour 2016 tonight.
Christmas trees behind him and the podium said Merry Christmas - so I guess it's a stance on the cultural founding of the country that those people were Christian. But this is a different world, and the cultural founding also involved slaves and there weren't many non-Christians who weren't getting slaughtered. So just a little white nationalist with intellectual sugar coating cultural revival sentiment there.
He was bragging about getting Person of the Year in Time, then started talking about how they used to call it Man of the
Year. He asked the crowd to chant person of the year, then man of the year, and he'd see which got the louder chant. Man of the year got a much louder chant. Trump said he's been asking this at all of his rallies and is getting the same result.
This tour, and the celebrities and potential cabinet members visiting him, is designed to be a media spectacle, to put the spotlight on himself, and engage his petty emotions in full.
And no this isn't 7d chess, it's just his petty emotions.
At the core of his character, he is a vile man.
|
On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones. Show nested quote +
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source
I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact.
I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects.
|
On December 14 2016 12:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Watched a little bit of the rally from Trump's Revenge and Gloating Tour 2016 tonight.
Christmas trees behind him and the podium said Merry Christmas - so I guess it's a stance on the cultural founding of the country that those people were Christian. But this is a different world, and the cultural founding also involved slaves and there weren't many non-Christians who weren't getting slaughtered. So just a little white nationalist with intellectual sugar coating cultural revival sentiment there.
He was bragging about getting Person of the Year in Time, then started talking about how they used to call it Man of the
Year. He asked the crowd to chant person of the year, then man of the year, and he'd see which got the louder chant. Man of the year got a much louder chant. Trump said he's been asking this at all of his rallies and is getting the same result.
This tour, and the celebrities and potential cabinet members visiting him, is designed to be a media spectacle, to put the spotlight on himself, and engage his petty emotions in full.
And no this isn't 7d chess, it's just his petty emotions.
At the core of his character, he is a vile man.
Dude you really need to take a step back and learn not to hate so much. You saw that he had Christmas trees at his rally and said it was a white supremacist sentiment. Its a spruce tree based on Lutheranism propaganda calm down. He got an award that people care about and had his political supporters cheer him on with his political allies next to him. Its not petty emotions its literally the same shit people have been doing for thousands of years.
You've got some serious bias's that you need to work through and its tainting the way you post. You can't criticize other people for the same thing without being a hypocrite.
|
On December 14 2016 14:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 12:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Watched a little bit of the rally from Trump's Revenge and Gloating Tour 2016 tonight.
Christmas trees behind him and the podium said Merry Christmas - so I guess it's a stance on the cultural founding of the country that those people were Christian. But this is a different world, and the cultural founding also involved slaves and there weren't many non-Christians who weren't getting slaughtered. So just a little white nationalist with intellectual sugar coating cultural revival sentiment there.
He was bragging about getting Person of the Year in Time, then started talking about how they used to call it Man of the
Year. He asked the crowd to chant person of the year, then man of the year, and he'd see which got the louder chant. Man of the year got a much louder chant. Trump said he's been asking this at all of his rallies and is getting the same result.
This tour, and the celebrities and potential cabinet members visiting him, is designed to be a media spectacle, to put the spotlight on himself, and engage his petty emotions in full.
And no this isn't 7d chess, it's just his petty emotions.
At the core of his character, he is a vile man. Dude you really need to take a step back and learn not to hate so much. You saw that he had Christmas trees at his rally and said it was a white supremacist sentiment. Its a spruce tree based on Lutheranism propaganda calm down. He got an award that people care about and had his political supporters cheer him on with his political allies next to him. Its not petty emotions its literally the same shit people have been doing for thousands of years. You've got some serious bias's that you need to work through and its tainting the way you post. You can't criticize other people for the same thing without being a hypocrite.
America is not a Christian country. That was just the cultural founding in the 1700s. White nationalist is not white supremacist. He said the award should be man of the year, and his supporters cheered on that claim, not just his award.
|
On December 14 2016 13:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact. I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects.
I mean if you wanted to really verify that you could look through the scientific data in the papers (ignore media write-ups or anything not part of a peer reviewed paper + focus on the data rather than the synopsis).
|
On December 14 2016 15:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 13:31 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact. I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects. I mean if you wanted to really verify that you could look through the scientific data in the papers (ignore media write-ups or anything not part of a peer reviewed paper + focus on the data rather than the synopsis).
Scientific data is not generally a component of climate skeptics' reasoning. It's more about attacking the scientists and asking why Florida hasn't gone underwater yet.
|
On December 14 2016 15:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 13:31 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact. I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects. I mean if you wanted to really verify that you could look through the scientific data in the papers (ignore media write-ups or anything not part of a peer reviewed paper + focus on the data rather than the synopsis).
It's on the to-do list. The predictions have been catastrophic. I'm trying to nail down how many more years we observe the rather arcane metrics by NOAA and the like, but people aren't seeing their docks submerged in beachfront estates. StealthBlue reminded me that I needed to seek out the new ten-year and twenty-year outlooks with whatever 85% chance of x inches sea level, y extra average hurricanes, z degrees surface temperature northern hemisphere landmass.
|
On December 14 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 15:11 Logo wrote:On December 14 2016 13:31 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact. I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects. I mean if you wanted to really verify that you could look through the scientific data in the papers (ignore media write-ups or anything not part of a peer reviewed paper + focus on the data rather than the synopsis). It's on the to-do list. The predictions have been catastrophic. I'm trying to nail down how many more years we observe the rather arcane metrics by NOAA and the like, but people aren't seeing their docks submerged in beachfront estates. StealthBlue reminded me that I needed to seek out the new ten-year and twenty-year outlooks with whatever 85% chance of x inches sea level, y extra average hurricanes, z degrees surface temperature northern hemisphere landmass.
but yeah the short term predictions are usually wrong (or at least used to not sure about anymore.) most of the agreed upon stuff talks about ranges in terms of like 150-200 years and a raise of x in terms of sea level for example. most doomsday predictions are either wrong or taking the extreme of the range and stating it as a fact.
but weather is not climate. politifact has an explanation in terms of how it relates to hurricanes
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/07/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-wrong-lack-hurricanes-diminishes-cli/
|
Danglars, if you genuinely want to know more about the issue, this page succinctly addresses the topic of the accuracy or lack of accuracy of predictive climate models. Beyond that, if you want to look at the science for yourself, I really recommend reading the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. It comes with easy to read executive summaries, and accessible data.
|
Maybe if the leader of the free world invites Trump over to his vacation home in Siberia, he can convince Trump that climate change is indeed real, as even he has turned around on the subject.
|
On December 14 2016 13:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact. I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects. the idea and current consensus is that global warming is causing ice to melt which is causing the poles to wobble. the thing is, it could very well be the other way around: poles wobble, ice melts, earth gets warmer.
a chicken or the egg thing.
|
On December 14 2016 12:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Christmas trees behind him and the podium said Merry Christmas - so I guess it's a stance on the cultural founding of the country that those people were Christian. But this is a different world, and the cultural founding also involved slaves and there weren't many non-Christians who weren't getting slaughtered. So just a little white nationalist with intellectual sugar coating cultural revival sentiment there.
Not that I'm justifying slavery or anything but you do realize that every single civilization went through slavery? All of it was "founded" on the oppression of minorities. Europeans did it, Americans did it, Asian countries today do it, African warlords themselves made money by capturing rivals and selling them as slaves in the 18th to 19th century. It was prevalent throughout history, even Rome did it. Everyone was doing it up until it started getting phased out very recently and the phasing out did start with Europeans...
I don't see much point in getting up and arms over history. What's done is done. Today is what matters.
|
also, don't look at predictions(those are useless) but at recent research like http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6332 In a paper published today in Science Advances, Surendra Adhikari and Erik Ivins of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, researched how the movement of water around the world contributes to Earth's rotational wobbles. Earlier studies have pinpointed many connections between processes on Earth's surface or interior and our planet's wandering ways. For example, Earth's mantle is still readjusting to the loss of ice on North America after the last ice age, and the reduced mass beneath that continent pulls the spin axis toward Canada at the rate of a few inches each year. But some motions are still puzzling.
A Sharp Turn to the East
Around the year 2000, Earth's spin axis took an abrupt turn toward the east and is now drifting almost twice as fast as before, at a rate of almost 7 inches (17 centimeters) a year. "It's no longer moving toward Hudson Bay, but instead toward the British Isles," said Adhikari. "That's a massive swing." Adhikari and Ivins set out to explain this unexpected change.
Scientists have suggested that the loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica's rapidly melting ice sheet could be causing the eastward shift of the spin axis. The JPL scientists assessed this idea using observations from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, which provide a monthly record of changes in mass around Earth. Those changes are largely caused by movements of water through everyday processes such as accumulating snowpack and groundwater depletion. They calculated how much mass was involved in water cycling between Earth's land areas and its oceans from 2003 to 2015, and the extent to which the mass losses and gains pulled and pushed on the spin axis.
|
On December 14 2016 17:35 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 13:31 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:One can only hope, without any lives lost though doubtful, that climate change hits the United States in the four years hard, very hard. That country and both parties changes their tones.
Scientists released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Source I'm hopeful! I want to know the likelihood that we see either an unmistakeable uptick in extreme weather events (so disappointing last couple), ocean sea levels at the coasts, or land temperatures in the US just go crazy in the next ten years. As many of you know, I'm one of the bigger climate skeptics here. There is still a small chance that underneath all the perversion of science in the craft and alarmist activism, there really is a problem that needs addressing in industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions. You know, after trying all these years to make their case partisan and stultifying debate, they could be right. I've learned that it's more about burning the witch than debate in these parts, so I'll just stick to finding out what the oddsmakers are putting out there for ten year impact and twenty year impact. I only hope Trump does nothing for the next four years to give the warming crowd their best shot at pointing out ill effects. the idea and current consensus is that global warming is causing ice to melt which is causing the poles to wobble. the thing is, it could very well be the other way around: poles wobble, ice melts, earth gets warmer. a chicken or the egg thing.
That thing you call wobble is a known phenomena called precession and it generally has a 26,000 year cycle. Astronomers have known this for a long time now and it's nothing new. Trying to tie precession to AGW is a new one even to me lmao. (But, yes, it is a theory that precession has been a factor in inducing ice ages, but haven't read up on how strong it is in a long time)
http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-precession.html
|
On December 14 2016 17:52 xM(Z wrote:also, don't look at predictions(those are useless) but at recent research like http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6332 Show nested quote +In a paper published today in Science Advances, Surendra Adhikari and Erik Ivins of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, researched how the movement of water around the world contributes to Earth's rotational wobbles. Earlier studies have pinpointed many connections between processes on Earth's surface or interior and our planet's wandering ways. For example, Earth's mantle is still readjusting to the loss of ice on North America after the last ice age, and the reduced mass beneath that continent pulls the spin axis toward Canada at the rate of a few inches each year. But some motions are still puzzling.
A Sharp Turn to the East
Around the year 2000, Earth's spin axis took an abrupt turn toward the east and is now drifting almost twice as fast as before, at a rate of almost 7 inches (17 centimeters) a year. "It's no longer moving toward Hudson Bay, but instead toward the British Isles," said Adhikari. "That's a massive swing." Adhikari and Ivins set out to explain this unexpected change.
Scientists have suggested that the loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica's rapidly melting ice sheet could be causing the eastward shift of the spin axis. The JPL scientists assessed this idea using observations from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, which provide a monthly record of changes in mass around Earth. Those changes are largely caused by movements of water through everyday processes such as accumulating snowpack and groundwater depletion. They calculated how much mass was involved in water cycling between Earth's land areas and its oceans from 2003 to 2015, and the extent to which the mass losses and gains pulled and pushed on the spin axis.
Hrm, I'm a bit confused. If the "wobble" (precession) is noticeably different than it has been in the past, there must be a reason for it. Now it's plausible to say that the remarkable change in precession is causing polar warming, rather than the sloshing water causing the change in precession. However, then you need a different cause for the change in precession. And I haven't seen any theories on that. And saying that it's a random happening requires more evidence, because AGW explains the change without external variables, whereas the other one you need to suppose a random change in precession (aka as an external variable). Occam's razor seems applicable here: invoking unnecessary externalities in the cause of your ideological beliefs is not good science. But I am neither a geologist nor a climate scientist, so there may actually be sound research supporting your claim here. Nevertheless, insofar as I know, Milankovitch Cycles in general have been shown insufficient to explain the current climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
