Look at the yellow line - it is hitting record lows. I don't understand what you mean by "record sea ice" in 2012 - it was in the top 10 lowest years (I think #6 or #4). What happens usually is that there's a steep decline in one year and then there's a recovery and I've seen many attempts to say things like "record recovery" but it's two steps down and one step back up.
This information isn't hard to find with a simple google search (for the last link I used "cryosphere" --- "piomas" is another good term to use). Search for "arctic ice" and select the "images" option - almost all the graphs there are indicative of the record decline.
The Antarctic is a bit more complicated, but it doesn't matter what happens there. Hypothetically, if the Northern Hemisphere goes by 10 degrees, and the Southern Hemisphere goes down by 10 degrees, the average temperate difference for the globe will be zero, but this would result in severe disruption of the climate system. My point is that only one of the dire predictions made by the AGW crowd needs to be right.”
“There are pages that deal with that issue but I'd say you can take a wait and see approach for a little while longer but the evidence isn't pointing against AGW. The models were wrong about the Arctic ice declining too (it declined MUCH faster than predicted). There's your canary in the coal mine. Once the summer ice goes the rest of it won't be far behind.
Look up the correlations between the used by the Limits to Growth people and where we are now. That is more convincing and doesn't rely on one number (temperature) to evaluate the state of the system.
I have little doubt that the feedbacks are going to come and bite us hard. How hard will it be will depend on how far we let it go doing BAU.”
miketg on May 6, 2014 at 08:58:10
“Thx. Can you give me some links to the pages? I hate to be the skeptic, but everything I read is speculative while the data appears to support mild to no warming. And, I get the sea ice to the north declining, but didn't this past winter have record sea ice? And, isn't it the same in the Antarctic? I'm just trying to separate fact from fiction.”
“They don't know with 100% certainty, but there is strong evidence available. It's a proxy measurement: they look at something that's correlated with CO2 (like plant stomata) when various proxies all point to the same thing, you get a pretty good idea. Ice core data let you make direct measurements, but they go back about 800,000 years.
If you googled your question you'd get the answers within the top 5 hits.
“You're simply incorrect with regards to the first remark. The atmosphere is a small portion of the Earth System and most of the heat goes to the oceans.
With regards to the feedback you're describing, look at what's happening with the Arctic in terms of satellite imagery and the latest explanations for the polar vortex swinging down, etc. The Arctic ice, particularly during the summer, is in the middle of a death spiral (though not dead yet). Nonetheless, this is what I tell people: you can do anything you want, believe whatever you want, until the Arctic goes ice free in the summer (it is close now, but it may never happen). Then when it does, recant your position and do everything in your power to stop the Arctic from going completely ice free all year around, since if it does, it is game over for humanity as we know it.
Again, the US Navy and others have said the the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2016 +/- 3 years. They could be wrong. So you can wait until then. But once it does, will you admit you're wrong? Or will continue to deny there is no spiral happening? If your position is the latter, then I have nothing more to say to you. If it is the former, then let's just wait and see.
By the time you see the feedback you want realised in its entirety, it will be too late to save humanity.”
“Due to the size of the earth, it takes a while for the system to reach equilibrium (if it is allowed to). What we're seeing now are the results of emissions from decades (30-40 years) ago. Also, the earth has never been uniformly warm or cold all over (so it is in fact a greenhouse with local cold and hot areas due to its large size and nonuniform heating - extremely large greenhouses would have hot and cold areas depending on how heating occurs), so just because you have a cold winter in one area doesn't mean it "is a contradiction of the AGW hypothesis." The AGW hypothesis says nothing about particular winters in particular areas being hot or cold. It fundamentally has to do with the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing of the entire system.
The oceans are absorbing heat and affecting the climate; they're the main drivers. Look at what's happening in the Arctic. Vast amounts of the ice has melted and huge amounts of methane is being release from underwater clathrate deposits. This is happening because of the heat being pumped into the ocean as well as CO2 trapping the heat. Look at temperature anomalies in the Arctic now - 3.4 degrees C in one year!
Are you really saying that there's no discernable trend to global temperature increase since the industrial era, that this is just normal fluctuations and has nothing to do with increased CO2 emissions?”
Bart DePalma on Mar 23, 2014 at 10:52:34
“BTW, I am very much enjoying our conversation. You are making substantive arguments on a subject where most posts never rise above the level of name calling.”
Bart DePalma on Mar 23, 2014 at 10:50:52
“"Are you really saying that there's no discernable trend to global temperature increase since the industrial era, that this is just normal fluctuations and has nothing to do with increased CO2 emissions?"
I do not believe we have a global temperature record statistically reliable to a tenth of a degree against which to measure any climate models.
Over the past century, varying small fractions of the Earth have been measured as stations come and go by the thousands, the stations measure temperatures at different times, they are maintained (or not maintained) differently, and many of them have been engulfed by urban heat sinks.
Then there is human manipulation and outright fraud.
The British CRU before Climategate was a completely arbitrary construct where the authors deleted data showing cooling and which could not be replicated during internal audits. After a whitewash investigation, CRU completely reworked their data and much of the supposed warming vanished.
NOAA showed similar warming and to this day will not release its modeling data.
BEST is the only temperature database which makes its data completely public and shows moderate warming over time. However, they still have all the source problems I noted above and they use a technique called Kriging to estimate temperatures hundreds of miles from the nearest weather station.”
Bart DePalma on Mar 23, 2014 at 10:48:40
“"The oceans are absorbing heat and affecting the climate; they're the main drivers."
More like the sun and atmospheric moisture.
"Look at what's happening in the Arctic. Vast amounts of the ice has melted and huge amounts of methane is being release from underwater clathrate deposits. This is happening because of the heat being pumped into the ocean as well as CO2 trapping the heat. Look at temperature anomalies in the Arctic now - 3.4 degrees C in one year!"
If human GHGs caused warming, which melted ice, releasing more GHGs, then we would be in a warming spiraling. We are not.”
“Nothwithstanding the fact that climate is not weather and vice versa, a cold winter is not a contradiction of the AGW hypothesis which has to do with the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases, particularly one or two we have control over emissions of (CO2 mainly, and CH4). It's the heat energy that is trapped by increased CO2 emissions that should lead to increased temperatures which could change the behaviour of air and water currents leading to colder winters in some places and warmer winters in others. Average land surface temperatures globally could even remain a constant if the ocean captures all the heat but if this causes different current circulation patterns and colder winters it could still be AGW/climate change/whatever you wish to call it. If (hypothetically speaking) in a few decades the Northern Hemisphere warmed by 10 degrees C and the Southern Hemispheres cooled by 10 degrees, due to increased heat in the oceans, it would still be AGW even though the average surface temperatures remained a constant.
This is why people have had a hard time with labelling it. It is global warming. It is also (more correctly) any climate (change) resulting from increased heat energy from increased CO2 emissions. The term "climate change" was used by the IPCC before it became popular but both terms are misinterpreted in lay use.”
Bart DePalma on Mar 22, 2014 at 23:19:29
“"It's the heat energy that is trapped by increased CO2 emissions that should lead to increased temperatures which could change the behaviour of air and water currents leading to colder winters in some places and warmer winters in others."
If the atmosphere is retaining more solar heat, then it will be doing so across the globe. There are no cold areas in green houses. There could be shifts in local weather, but overall the temperatures should be rising in tandem with the increasing human GHG emissions.
In reality, temperature is very noisy and bounces by a degree or so every year. There really is no discernible trend in raw temperature data over the past century.
Even the statistically smoothed temperature data show small rises and falls in the trends every couple decades. This should not be happening as human GHG emissions expanded exponentially over the past century.
If the ocean is absorbing the rising atmospheric heat during the latest flatline since 1997, then it should have been doing that same thing when temperatures rose between 1980-1997.”
Mar 6, 2014 at 20:38:12
“I'm 18/18 also, but for me it's not just a matter of checking these off, but doing it ALL to the extreme. Perhaps doing things to the extreme should be 19, but certainly these are good criteria. I've seen other lists before (shorter) but I've felt they've never captured it. This seems a bit more comprehensive.
I also will say this: doing stuff in the arts isn't the only way you can be creative. You can be creative doing anything. While I do make music and do other things people would generally associate with creativity, science is my passion and I consider doing good science to require huge amounts of creativity (thinking out of the box). But it goes beyond science. I've seen my kids grow up doing creative things and they approach everything creatively. The same task by two people could be done creatively and the output may appear the same but the path taken could be very different. One could be creative and the other one done routinely, as though it were yet another job to be done. I think this is one of the more relevant distinctions, how you approach things.”
“How do your comments reconcile with the comments from the Warren Commission report?
The comment I made was about circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald, not direct evidence. I was quoting the Warren Commission itself which thought Oswald guilty and I pointed you to that source. Where is the source for your quote? AFAIK no fingerprints belonging to Oswald was found except on stacks. I already stated the ownership of the rifle is what is most compelling against Oswald (which he denied also). That is circumstantial evidence.
For it to not be circumstantial, the prints not only needs to show up on the rifle but that he was holding it during the time of the shooting (this was attempted, but again see the WC conclussion). There's no eyewitness evidence here in this case and there's no confession: it's all circumstantial or inferred evidence.
BTW circumstantial evidence is what is used many/most cases to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying anything about whether something being circumstantial is good or bad, but just that that's all it is.”
"No fingerprints were found on any of the three empty bullet shells found in the TSBD, or on the intact bullet. Nor were any prints found on the rifle clip that held the intact bullet and into which the shells must have been loaded by hand (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.253, 258–60)."
"Shortly before midnight on the day of the assassination, the rife was flown to Washington. Sebastian Latona, a fingerprint expert at the FBI laboratory, examined the rifle and the photographs, but concluded that no identifiable prints were present (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.21). The rifle was returned by the FBI to the Dallas police on 24 November."
“Two different areas of prints were found on the rifle taken from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lieutenant Day. The first area of fingerprints was located on the left side of the trigger housing of the rifle as it was held in a forward position. A second area containing a palm print was found on the underside of the disassembled rifle barrel later in the evening of the assassination after further examination by Lieutenant Day. The latent fingerprints appeared immediately while the rifle was being dusted on the sixth floor after it was located behind the stacks of boxes. This action was captured on film by a news photographer who had been allowed on the sixth floor by police. The fingerprints were then photographed by Lieutenant Day after bringing the rifle back to the Crime Lab Office and are the photographs which Rusty has copies of today. Crime Lab Detective Barnes was in the office at the time Lieutenant Day photographed the trigger-housing fingerprints. He later compared the trigger-housing photographs himself to a print card of Oswald and told us that he found 3 points of identity. Pete told Rusty and me that there was not a doubt in his mind that it was Oswald's fingerprint.(3) Verification of ownership of the rifle was initially developed by Homicide Detective Gus Rose for Captain Fritz. On the afternoon of the assassination, Gus was the first officer to speak to Oswald's wife, Marina, about the rifle at the Paine home in Irving. He asked Marina if her husband owned a rifle, and through the translation of Ruth Paine into Russian, Marina responded, "Yes."”
“How can science or anyone or anything prove Oswald fired the bullets? He wasn't seen doing the shooting. No one did. He never admitted to it himself. So there's no way can obtain any kind of proof. All you can do is infer and the inference comes from the murder weapon used and the pictures of Oswald with the seeming identical weapon. Other than that, it's all conjecture (there may be other circumstantial items pointing to Oswald). It's not even clear to me Oswald would've been convicted given the "reasonable doubt" standard.
I actually am okay with anything that would be the truth. If Oswald acted alone, so be it. If someone else did it, then that's okay too. I'm not looking for a conspiracy. I'm fascinated by the fact that Oswald never admitted to doing it. There wasn't even any ambiguity about it: he flat out denied it and there's no direct proof he did it. So my conclusion here is that we'll never really know unless there was another shooter and that person or someone who knows them comes forward.”
capn moose on Nov 21, 2013 at 12:11:24
“Ram--- Yes Oswald never admitted it -- he was killed way before any real interrogation and most criminals, killers, deny their acts. There is little doubt if any that Oswald was in that room and the shot came from there and that he had been practicing rapid and accurate fire with that rifle. The type of bullet used can "tumble" as it moves forward and had serious weight for that caliber -- it was a military rifle. The conspiracy theories that try to tie the Mafia, the Soviets, the CIA and LBJ are just money-seeking foolish when examined in detail. Many other such "theorists" simply seek attention or to harm the image of this or that political person.”
“That I think is the key issue. There's only circumstantial evidence linking Oswald to the murder (the picture with the rifle). Oswald himself denied both killings (JFK and the police officer) which I think is the weirdest thing about it. If Jack Ruby hadn't killed Oswald we might have gotten a better handle on what really happened, but since Oswald was shot and no other suspect was pursued, we end up with this uncertain situation. I think for a case like this it would've been great had we found more direct evidence of Oswald's involvement in the JFK killing in the first place. Did they even get the right guy? The experts think so and I'm inclined to agree with them but his denial is bothersome (but again, it was only after a few days of interrogation, he might've broken down over time).”
omobob on Nov 18, 2013 at 17:19:58
“> circumstantial evidence...?
Like Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle and shell casings?”
forwardtothefuture on Nov 18, 2013 at 13:43:53
“What is really bothersome is when you find out all the connections to powerful interests the people surrounding Oswald and interacting with him had!”
“Perhaps you can affect local changes but there will be global repurcussions which you can't control since you're dealing with a highly complex and massive nonlinear system (the entire planet). Depending on your perspective, AGW is indeed controlling the weather and climate (not the same thing), though not for our benefit of course. Look at how that is working out. Chances are you'll end up making things globally even if you make things better locally.”
“Of course, but that's a bit of an echo chamber. I'd like to see the NY Times and the Washington Post cover it but it has started. There's a nice article in the NYT today that sums up all the issues very clearly. It also looks like people "get it" this time around based on the polls. Hopefully the short memories people have will end up being an exception come next election.”
“Actually this is the media's job. The media should be questioning why a clean resolution isn't being passed. Obama is doing his job, which is to not yield with the hostage takers, as he has tried to in the past. The debt ceiling isn't something to negotiate over.”
Evol Syawla on Oct 14, 2013 at 08:25:45
“It is done on MSNBC all the time by Dr Rachel Maddow, Professor Klein, etc, etc.”
“I agree with the other commenters. He can only do something if he invokes his emergency powers, but he won't be able to until the crisis happens and by then things may well be too late (and even then I'm sure he'll be aggressively challenged). If we see a huge panic all around if the debt ceiling isn't increased, it could happen. It's an artificially manufactured crisis since I'd like to see what would happen if Boehner just asked the House to vote on a debt ceiling increase without conditions---if Republicans truly want to vote "NO" in the majority to the debt ceiling increase, let them go on the record for it.
The situation has now become "we can't back off this fight something to show for it" on the part of the Republicans. They've backed themselves into a corner and don't know how to get out without saving face. For their hubris, the country suffers.”
Wanda047 on Oct 13, 2013 at 02:52:58
“Thanks for your reply Ram Samudrala. It's a darn shame that they(GOP/Tea baggers) rather see the whole country crumble and become totally destroyed, just to "save face".. Shame..”
It's illogical to connect Obama's past actions on HOW he voted to whether one should vote on this issue or not. Obama isn't telling anyone how to vote, but he's saying the vote should be done without conditions. He's saying Congress should do their job, and since they're our employees, I say the same thing. The House should just put up the debt limit increase without any strings attached and have the representatives vote. Then if the majority of the House votes NO, then let the chips fall where they may. But Boehner is refusing to do this, which I simply consider not doing the job they were employed to do (voting on our behalf).
In any event, the Congress, starting with the House, is what is responsible for what happens. Whether they pass a unconditional debt ceiling increase or not, or refuse to even vote on it without conditions, it's all in their hands to solve this situation.”
“And you know, until now the Obama was being criticised for not coming out on its exact position on these states legalising marijuana by people for various reasons and I never saw this particular viewpoint advocated as to why it took them so long to come up with a response. That is, there are powerful politics at play here and that the police officers organisations actually support the drug war (I've seen the opposite argument made actually).”
Bigdaddy Milkman on Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:03
“Yup. Every cop I've ever met, bar 1, is all for legalizing pot. (most of them I know smoke themselves) And by "powerful politics.." you really mean lots of money. Money IS power in a Capitalist society. I wonder how much big pharm has spent ensuring pot stays illegal?”
“Yep. Congress made this happen. This is what free market ideology gets you. It is better for corporations to have the extra cash so they will pass it on the consumer (yeah, of course) and reinvest it (sure).”
“This post is spot on. Thanks for writing what I wanted to write. Corporations and people in charge of them are as a whole pretty arrogant. I mean I hang out with academics who're a pretty snotty bunch themselves (stereotyping of course) but VC/CEO types who I've started to meet in the last few years are worse. At least the academics contribute something substantial to society (knowledge) at times. Greed is bad.”
“I really don't understand greed. What exactly is the nature of the void people are trying to fill using money? Why can't people be content with what they have materially? I've never understood it. It comes naturally to me I've been told by many people. I grew up given everything I could want, is that it? (I'm trying that out on my kids and so far it is working (kids aged 19, 13 and 5 and we completely cut them off financially when they turn 18, like I did to myself when I was 17). I think that's actually true; if you grow up not wanting material goods because you have everything then you never "learn" to accumulate things.)”
Iron Mike Texas on May 24, 2013 at 07:47:22
“These people pay good money to get an education and get a good paying job. The winners will be the people that save money for the corporations! The stockholders want the best return on their investment and that includes a lot of pension money that was invested!”
“It is not possible. If there is connectivity, there is always the capacity to create a virtual internet that transcends any attempt at a structured system; our current Internet itself is composed of such virtual internets.”
“I'm glad someone is fighting the fight. The double standard is stunning. I think those who *knowingly* or *intentionally* engaged in financial malfeasance should suffer the same fate as the victims of such malfeasance for the rest of their lives.”