Familiar
Nobody likes change.
This shit been blowing up on my social media feeds. As noted in this link, Form 4473 has asked about race and ethnicity since the W years. Hell, I’ve been marking my “race’ as “other” for years before Barrack Hussein Obama took office. Once again, Obama is not a magical devil coming to take away White Men’s guns. At best, he talks a lot of hooey about gun control, without actually doing anything. He’s a boogeyman.
I’m not saying that politicians aren’t trying to take away our firearms rights. They are. But this shouldn’t be a fucking left/right argument. As was recently splattered as an accusation at me in the comments of this comic: I’m a moderate Liberal. Yep. No denying it. I believe in Welfare, Abortion rights, and freedom of religion and speech. Get the fuck over it. I also believe in the 2A, and I believe that it is THE amendment that makes all of the others possible. Even though our rights are being eroded every day.
I’m on your side, you cunts. Stop getting shitty because I don’t march in lockstep with you. The important thing is that we’re all here and alive, and capable of disagreeing without jackbooted thugs stomping our front doors down for the expression of our beliefs.
There’s no reason to hate Obama for his record on guns; you can hate him for his record on civil rights generally. His administration has taken the Bush legacy and torn the lid off it. The NSA is bigger than ever, spying on Americans is basically just a given, and to top it off, Obama ordered the killing of an American citizen on his say so alone, completely without any due process. It was bad enough when the Bush administration kicked things off with warrantless wiretapping, but summary execution is an imperial power, and Obama has claimed that for himself, to no real opposition.
And the disregard for basic Constitutional guarantees doesn’t stop with him. Ed Murray, now the mayor of Seattle, proposed an assault weapons ban as a state senator after Sandy Hook. Included was a provision that the local sheriff would be entitled to a random, unannounced, no-warrant-required search of any gun owner’s property to inspect for safe storage. When it comes to the Second Amendment, the hate burns so strong they’re willing to take down the other Amendments to have a go at it.
There are idiots all over the spectrum, should we start going back and forth about politicians proposing unconstitutional things from the GOP too? Would that be meaningful, or even useful? I mean, personally I think the Republicans and tea party are far worse. I also think the claims about Obama are BADLY overblown, and in most cases outright fabrications or complaints about things the other side not only did but supported. So shall we go there?
“Obama ordered the killing of an American citizen on his say so alone, completely without any due process.”
This being the world-wide (excluding North Korea) web, there are several people reading this from parts of the world where that one American citizen could be considered less significant than … well, any two innocent civilians anywhere, frankly. 500kg laser-guided bomb hits a Hamas leader’s car (in a “targeted assassination,” which is distinct from the other kind of assassination that other nations do) in a crowded marketplace. How many people too young and/or too female to have ever had any say in who governs the Gaza Strip die? More than 1? Drone strike blows seven shades of shit out of a Taliban-run school. Taliban staff there to indoctrinate kids die, as do two maids. A new trade deal puts some major waves into the price of wheat on the commodity markets, playing havoc with the farmers in Africa. 5,000 people starve to death. Global warming contributes to a season of major storms being more severe than ever before experienced. The death toll is 2,996 higher than in any previous storm season. US cluster bombs left over from the Vietnam war are shipped to Israel. The Israeli Air Force drops them on Lebanon. The sub-munitions have a high failure rate. 200 Lebanese children get their limbs blown off by things that look exactly like Pokeballs. Another 20 drone strikes kill another 40 al-Qaeda bods and another 200 civilians. The next one takes out an American citizen and THAT’s when you start freaking out?
The point of panic is when someone kills a person who they ACTUALLY RELY ON, to get elected, paid, etc… That’s when the dog is no longer doing a “Maybe he thinks they’re burglars”, no: this is the hand that feeds him, and that means it’s time to put him down.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/28/judge-character/
Yeah, but I don’t hold politicians to higher standards than attack dogs.
They fail me often enough at that level anyways.
Glocks suck.
Woot. more 2 Gryph. That guy makes any serious issue funny
“Stop getting shitty because I don’t march in lockstep with you.”
HAHAHAHAHA
Don’t you know that 90% agreement is still 10% heresy?
Yay liberal gun owners!
Second that! (and SECOND that)
Thirded. I resent the fact that because I back the RTKBA, I’m expected, by both liberals and conservatives alike, to back a whole bunch of homophobic, racist, xenophobic, misogynist, religious, and counter-scientific claptrap along with it.
Actually, 30-odd years ago, weren’t they claiming we we about to go into another ice age? Or was that 40 years ago?
And “no air”? Yeah, I’m pretty sure this guy doesn’t understand much basic science. So, while there are things to discuss and debate, he doesn’t impress me on this subject.
Selling of fear and hysteria pisses me off no matter who is doing it, on any issue.
And yes, I know hyperbole is what he does.
But he could at least be hyperbolic based on a shred of truth.
like his “everything is made of trees”. problem is there are MORE trees now than there were in the 1600’s. and less forest fires. same with whitetail deer and turkeys. more habitat = more animals.
oh yeah and no “globull wurming” cough**manbearpig**cough in the last 18+ years and the “scientists” try desperately to hide it. sorry, but a scientist is not supposed to ignore data they don’t like.
also, it’s the GW crowd who wants to put “deniers” in JAIL. leave them in charge and so much for “capable of disagreeing without jackbooted thugs stomping our front doors down”
Oh, shit. It took so long to type that lot and someone’s ALREADY gone for the “no global warming in the last 10 years” bollocks, only they’ve changed the number. Fast. Still bollocks, but credit where it’s due: fast.
People were quoting that “fact” again and again for years after whatever shill first spouted it. I checked it out. If you look at the graph of global annual average temperatures, the year-by-year data are, of course, up and down a lot as some years are warmer than others in any decade or five-year period or fifteen-year period or whatever. Drawn through that spiky up-and-down line is the five-year average. That’s a more useful number. You may also see 10-year or 15-year averages drawn through it. They all curve upwards.
I forget what year it was. Let’s call it 2004. 2004, if that’s the year it was, was a much colder year than 2003 or 2005. It was a colder year than any from 1996 to 2004, and we haven’t had a year that cold since. 1994, conveniently 10 years earlier, was an exceptionally hot year for its time. It was far hotter than any of the 1970s or 1980s had been. It was the hottest year of 1970 to 1998. It shows up on the graph as a huge upward spike above the trend, just as 2004 shows up as a huge downward spike below the trend.
They had the same temperature. The same global annual average temperature, that is, not the exact same temperatures in the same places on the same days. The same global annual average temperature. Someone saw that and said: “Hey, everybody, look! Last year wasn’t any warmer than the year 10 years before it! Obviously there’s no such thing as global warming!”
People believed him. Sad, isn’t it?
Compare 1993 with 2003 or 1995 with 2005 or 1993 with 2005 or 1995 with 2003 or, if you’re more the scientist type, compare 1992-1996 with 2002-2006 or 1990-1994 with 2000-2004 or 1994-1998 with 2004-2008. Hey, look. Warming.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/
and again
Recap me. Why is 1998 so significant? I see you making brackets AROUND this year quite a few times, and I remember they said if you started your graph here, the world has actually cooled since then. I just want to get an idea of what we think happened that CAUSED this particular year to be so different.
Let’s go for a hypothetical analogy. Let’s imagine you’re posted to a military base in some sandy place far from home, protecting your country’s current government’s biggest sponsor’s access to some foreigners’ natural resources, and that base has come under attack on many occasions since it was first established. Let’s further imagine that someone has compiled a graph of the number of attacks per week, and that the graph, apart from the axes, looks a lot like the black line on this one, with a lot of week-to-week variation around an ongoing trend. With me so far? Right. Now imagine that, at the end of the “quiet” week near the right-hand side of the graph, “last week” when that graph was drawn, someone back home tells the world that relations with the locals are excellent and rumours of increasing frequency of attacks on your base have been proven to be utterly false as the week just gone was actually quieter than the week ten before it. Is he right, or is he talking horseshit? If another five weeks go by, each with more attacks on your position than that “quiet” week after which he claimed the tide had turned, and people are still quoting him and saying the insurgency is fading away, are they talking utter horseshit? Do you need to know why that week was quieter than the ones before and after it to answer that question? If you set up a wireless thermometer on an outside wall, away from vents and chimneys, and run an app that makes a graph of the temperature every noon, and on 15th March the temperature at noon was much warmer than it was on 14th or 16th, then on 25th March it was much cooler than it was on 24th or 26th, and two weeks later somebody looks at your graph, picks up on the fact that 25th March was cooler than 15th March and tells you, based on those two datum points alone, that we are not going to have a summer this year, would you take his word for it? Would you need to check the weather history for your area and find an explanation for the low temperature on 25th March, or would you be willing to take the trend in temperatures from the end of January to early April as indicating that the weather is getting warmer?
Longest way yet I’ve seen someone avoid answering a question. If you don’t have the info I’m asking about, it’s ok to say so.
I tried looking for an answer. Apparently an album called So Cool was released in 1998, so it kind of spams the search results.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html#.VCwssRbwrPY
The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.
During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer, which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)
Well, there’s one answer: a very strong El Niño in ’98 and a very strong La Nina in ’08.
A few other pages mention the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is a similar sort of thing. We’re measuring the temperatures all over the surface of the water, not at any depths. More heat, differently distributed, can appear as a lower average surface temperature. Presumably, it’ll come back up from the depths at some point, in another spike like ’98. If it does that under an Antarctic ice sheet, it could present a major hazard to navigation.
I also found a graph not of annual temperatures but of seasonal temperatures here: http://sarahlicity.co.uk/2011/04/16/anthropomorphic-climate-change-and-the-1998-myth/
Decembers getting hotter and hotter even more rapidly than the rest of the year? That could be a cause of extra concern for Australia.
Right, I DO remember the El Niño thing.
So here’s my ponderances that I rarely see addressed anywhere.
1. If there are really places in antarctica which are literally too cold to snow (water cannot be supported by the air, and still reach them), as we achieve a degree or two of warming, don’t those places now acquire new snowfall which will probably remain there for a gazillion years, like everything under it? That weight of water is removed from the oceans for the indefinite future.
2. Do we never hear about the holes in the Ozone layer because they fixed themselves, or because it’s politically inconvenient to have to acknowledge that ozone is a greenhouse gas? A third option, maybe?
1) Probably, yes, but will it balance the amount of water melting off mountain ranges on land and running into the seas? Probably not. It would have to be a LOT of snow.
Greenland has permanent ice because it’s so high. It’s so high because it’s covered in so much ice. As the ice on Greenland melts, slips downhill faster and gets thinner, the highest parts of Greenland get lower and thus warmer. The more ice melts off Greenland, the less ice forms on Greenland. Increased snowfall on Greenland is not about to balance that ice loss. It’d have to fall on Antarctica instead, on the far side of a lot of air currents. If it all falls in Ohio instead, the Louisville, Tell City, Owensboro, Evansville, Paducah, Cairo, Caruthersville, Memphis, Natchez and … oh yeah … New Orleans get that water instead.
Perturbation of air flow patterns and deep ocean currents is expected … but we don’t have all the details yet. Quite what amount of rainfall is going to get relocated and/or rescheduled from what time and place to what other time and place we can’t yet predict. If all of California’s rain moves to Seattle or if Colorado gets all its rain in 1 week of each year, that’s a major issue for a lot of people. Here’s one thing we’re already seeing to some extent: The rising Arctic temperature is causing the jet stream – a key determinant of the weather – to take a more amplified and wavier path, which will lead to more storms, says Professor Jennifer Francis, of Rutgers University in the US. … When the high-altitude westerly airstream – known as the jet stream – swings north, it sweeps warm air from the tropics over Europe, Russia or North America. When it swings south, it sucks in cold, frigid air from the Arctic. Each weather pattern causes extreme heat, cold, floods or droughts.
2. IPCC 2001 report on stratospheric ozone:
The Montreal Protocol is an internationally accepted agreement whereby nations agree to control the production of ozone-depleting substances. Many of the chemicals that release chlorine atoms into the stratosphere, and deplete stratospheric O3, are also greenhouse gases, so they are discussed briefly here.
The depletion of stratospheric ozone over the past three decades has been substantial. Between 60°S and 60°N it averaged about 2%/decade. A thorough review of the direct and possible indirect effects of stratospheric ozone depletion are given in WMO (Granier and Shine, 1999). The depletion of O3 (and its radiative forcing) is expected to follow the weighted halogen abundance in the stratosphere. Therefore, both will reach a maximum in about 2000 before starting to recover; however, detection of stratospheric O3 recovery is not expected much before 2010 (Jackman et al., 1996; Hofmann and Pyle, 1999). Methyl chloroform has been the main driver of the rapid turnaround in stratospheric chlorine during the late 1990s (Montzka et al., 1999; Prinn et al., 2000), and further recovery will rely on the more slowly declining abundances of CFC-11 and -12, and halons (Fraser et al., 1999; Montzka et al., 1999). It is expected that stratospheric ozone depletion due to halogens will recover during the next 50 to 100 years (Hofmann and Pyle, 1999). In the short run, climatic changes, such as cooling in the northern winter stratosphere, may enhance ozone depletion, but over the next century, the major uncertainties in stratospheric ozone lie with (i) the magnitude of future consumption of ozone-depleting substances by developing countries (Fraser and Prather, 1999; Montzka et al., 1999), (ii) the projected abundances of CH4 and N2O, and (iii) the projected climate change impacts on stratospheric temperatures and circulation.
NASA GODDARD HOMEPAGE FOR TROPOSPHERIC OZONE
{Lots of data on how it’s doing}
UCAR.edu and UNL.edu cite ozone as a greenhouse gas in the troposphere and at ground level, but not in the stratosphere. They’re not explaining why, and neither are the next few pages on the subject I read. Wikipedia’s got some numbers concerning radiative forcing, concentrations, tons equivalent and all that, but their cited sources don’t seem to back them up.
Just for the final point, I was advised in high school enviro-sci that “ozone” is the polite word for “smog”, when it’s at ground level.
Why don’t look at the medieval warm period from 1000-13000 and tell me how it was aroun5 degrees warmer when there was no industry. If youlook at that period it blows all man made global warning out of the water.
For the record, I don’t deny that ‘global warming’ occurs. I’m simply not convinced that it’s happening NOW, or that if it is, it will continue. And I certainly am not convinced that it is driven largely by human activity.I don’t dney that it’s possible, but I don’t think the evidence is as conclusive as many claim. (I also know that I certainly don’t know the field well enough to make any claims of certainty of my own. So I remain open to evidence and reason.)
Secondly, I’m pretty sure that, considering the time-spans involved, 10 years, or even 15 or 20, is not sufficient evidence of a guaranteed trend. But again, I stay open to evidence.
What makes me cranky is people who claim a position, stick their fingers in their ears, and holler that everyone else is wrong, and thus a bad person. No matter which side is doing it.
“it’s the GW crowd who wants to put “deniers” in JAIL”
[CITATION NEEDED]
RFK Jr wants to jail energy CEO’s for “Treason” Laments no current laws to punish climate skeptics.
http://youtu.be/41yJTxrPFhM
see? that wasn’t so hard. and he’s not alone.
Indeed, he’s not alone. There are other people in the video.
Now, that video is titled: “RFK Jr wants to jail energy CEO’s for “Treason” Laments no current laws to punish climate skeptics.”
Here’s a transcript, because I’m nice like that:
“ll I think they should be in jail. I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals who are there.”
“What about politicians, ah, people who deny, who discess srepicism?” [Well, I don’t know what he said. Express scepticism?]
“I think they’re selling out to public troughs, and, y’know, I think those guys who are doing the the Coke brothers’ bidding and who, against all the evidence of the rational mind, are saying that global warming doesn’t exist, that they are contemptible human beings and that, y’know, I wish that there were a law you could punish them under. I don’t think there’s a war a law that you can punish those politicians under but I do I think the Coke brothers should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment, absolutely. That’s a criminal offence, and they ought to be serving time for it.”
“Alright. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate th”
That transcript does not support the assertions made in the title of the video, and it does not support your assertion that “the GW crowd … wants to put “deniers” in JAIL.”
[CITATION STILL NEEDED]
“Actually, 30-odd years ago, weren’t they claiming we we about to go into another ice age? Or was that 40 years ago?”
No, they weren’t.
This isn’t quite as bad as the “There’s been no warming in the last 10 years” horseshit, but it’s still horseshit.
Yes, that RG guy is wrong. No, the scientists were not saying we were about to go into another ice age.
For one thing, we’re still in one. Quite apart from that, take a look at actual papers from 30 to 40 years ago and see what they were actually saying.
Weather and Climate
This subject, like others discussed in the report, has more facets than can be properly treated here. Two, however, merit particular attention: intentional modification of weather and inadvertent alteration of climate. The global importance of these facets, combined with the increasing prospect of human intervention in each, make both of them matters for concern.
While public attention has focused largely on intentional modification of weather, there is growing concern over the possibility of the inadvertent modification of climate. Specific examples of these concerns include the recent debate over the possible effects of the SST on the global atmosphere, impacts of the heat output from large power plants, and the effects of the higher temperatures and articulate emissions of cities on downwind rainfall.
Human activity may be involved on an even broader scale in changing the global climate. The growth and pattern of agricultural and industrial development over the last century may have influenced the mean temperature of the world. Warming temperatures prevailed for about 100 years, from the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries, following the “little ice age” which lasted some 200 years. During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.
The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century. According to this view, activities of the expanding human population — especially those involved with the burning of fossil fuels — raised the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, which acts as a “greenhouse” for retaining the heat radiated from the earth’s surface. This, it is believed, may have produced the warming temperatures after the mid-19th century. But simultaneously, according to this view, growing industrialization and the spread of agriculture introduced increasing quantities of dust into the atmosphere which reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. By the middle of this century, the cooling effect of the dust particles more than compensated for the warming effect of the carbon dioxide, and world temperature began to fall.
The colder temperatures have been accompanied by marked changes in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere, which are prime determiners of weather. Several consequences of these recent climatic changes have been observed: midsummer frosts and record old
autumns in the midwest of the United States, shortening of the crop season in Great Britain, and the southward intrusion of sea-ice on the shores of Iceland. Possibly linked to these changes in temperature and circulation is the occurrence of an unusually large number of severe storms in many parts of the world, and the development of a calamitous drought belt extending around the world, passing through the sub-Sahara, Middle East, India, China’s Yangtze Valley, and Central America.
The state of knowledge regarding climate and its changes is too limited to predict reliably whether the present, unanticipated cooling trend will continue, or to forecast probable changes in precipitation if the trend persists. The practical consequences of an extended cooling period — the effects on food production, energy consumption, and the location of human settlements — make it important to monitor climatic changes closely and widely, to determine their cause, particularly the role of human activities, and to seek countermeasures.
In summary: “That whole subject is really a lot more complicated than we thought, we don’t know what’s going on out there yet, the possibilities are really scary and we need to watch what’s happening, figure stuff out and do something about it.”
There’s already a lot about what was and wasn’t predicted. We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know. Again, however, it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitave assessment of the cliatic impacts.
There was a whole lot of “we’d better learn more about this” and actually a lot less “Temperatures in Helsinki will be 3.7 degrees centigrade lower in the year 2022 than they were last year, and it will rain heavily on 3rd March” than some people make out.
1979: For more than a century, we have been aware that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could affect its ability to trap the sun’s energy for our benefit. We now have incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing, and these changes are linked with man’s use of fossil fuels and exploitation of the land. Since carbon dioxide plays a significant role in the heat budget of the atmosphere, it is reasonable to suppose that continued increases would affect climate.
These concerns have prompted a number of investigations of the implications of increasing carbon dioxide. Their consensus has been that increasing carbon dioxide will lead to a warmer earth with a different distribution of climatic regimes.
If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.
Before anyone starts on the “HEY IT’S COOLER THIS WEEK THAN SIX WEEKS AGO SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING HA HA HA” bullshit, let me point out that it’s an upward trend (not a year-on-year increase) in global (not necessarily local) annual (not necessarily any particular season) temperatures … and then just make this wall of text even longer by quoting myself from six and a half years ago:
Global warming isn’t just “the whole world gets 1’C warmer”. That’s an average. Some parts will get much hotter, some won’t change much, some will stop getting rain, some will start getting more rain, some belts of seasonal rain will shift north or south, hurricanes will become more frequent and more energetic, droughts will become more severe, what used to be reliable gentle rain every few days will become long dry periods between days of downpours that overwhelm the drainage systems and cause destructive flooding, longer and hotter dry spells will produce more and worse wildfires, regions will become uninhabitable, glaciers will recede and in some cases disappear, what used to be a steady supply of meltwater will become a torrent in winter and a slow, muddy trickle in summer, the Arctic ice-cap will disappear, polar bears will probably become extinct, the part of the world warm enough to sustain endemic malaria will expand by a thousand miles …
… and land-based ice will melt. That doesn’t just mean no more Christmas and Easter skiing. The Eiger’s in danger of falling apart because it’s held together by ice. Road, rail and power are buckling and falling apart because their foundations were in permafrost that has turned into bog. All that fresh water being dumped into the sea will reduce its salinity, reducing its density and reducing the density difference between warm and cold sea water that currently powers a worldwide system of oceanic currents including the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation. At present, that carries warm water from the Caribbean up past the west coast of France and around Ireland. If it fails, we lose that warmth. That failure could happen inside a decade. Years ago, now, I saw a prediction that if it took 50 years to fail we’d have the worst winter of the 20th century every six or seven years … and if it only took 25 years the port of Dover would be closed due to sea ice.
On top of all that, the volume of water currently frozen on land is immense. The ice-cap on Greenland is extremely thick. It sits on the ground and very slowly slides into the sea and more forms on top, but as it melts that meltwater runs down through cracks in the ice and lubricates it, causing it to slide faster. What slides into the sea breaks off, drifts away and melts. When it slides faster than it’s replaced, the amount of ice there decreases and the altitude of the summits decreases too. Losing altitude makes it warmer. Even if the world got cooler again, Greenland wouldn’t reform that ice cap. It’d take a full ice age to achieve that. If all the ice slides off Greenland and melts, it’ll raise global sea levels by 7m. A couple of metres of ice over the whole of Scotland isn’t going to put a big dent in that.
If it all goes, it’s more like 30m or 40m, but noone’s predicting that. 7m isn’t predicted inside our lifetimes … yet. Enough stupidity and desperation could change that, but for now, let’s take a look at 1m. It’s not too bad for Britain and France but parts of NW Europe would suffer or have to spend a fortune on defences. NE Italy would lose a lot of built-up area if they didn’t build one heck of a sea-wall and a lot of pumps. Bangladesh, being river delta, will get it hard. They’re already feeling it. Apart from floods and losing glacial meltwater supply reliability, they’re too close to sea level. The rising tide turns the ground-water salty, and the crops fail. Sucks to be them, eh? India’s seen it coming and is building a wall to stop fifteen million Bangladeshi refugees running west, but they’re going to have to go somewhere. The same goes for southern Vietnam, or southern Vietnam, much of Cambodia and very significant parts of Thailand at 7m. Got a clever plan for somewhere else to put Bangkok? While you’re at it, parts of Antigua, Barbuda, the British Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Cuba and southern Florida could do with a new home too and parts of Rio de Janeiro are low enough to get flooded by the sea rising like a thermometer even if the ice somehow doesn’t melt. Other islands have already disappeared.
If it rises faster than coral can grow it could kill off the lower parts of coral reefs and make them much more vulnerable too.
Actually, a few were. I recall watching a program on PBS about a scientist who was measuring a year-over-year southward creep of the permafrost in Newfoundland, which he saw as evidence of increased cooling. There were also a couple of others who wrote articles which leaned this way. The bulk of the scientific community in the field however did not subscribe to this view and in fact tended to think that climate was warming instead.
The only ones predicting imminent glaciation were some journalists, though, IIRC. There was one particularly splashy article in “TIME”, I believe.
That TIME article is starting to sound like a Supermoon article. “Astronomers all cringe when they hear ‘Supermoon’ or ‘Zodiac’.” – xkcd
One of the things about it being an upward trend in global annual average temperatures is that things can be very different locally. Alaska’s more than 4 times bigger than Britain. If Alaska gets 1°C warmer and Britain gets 4°C cooler, that’s warming on average. If Alaska’s monthly temperatures change by -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +3, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1 and Britain’s change by -11, -9, -7, -4, 0, +3, +4, +3, 0, -5, -8, -9, that’s +11 AlaskaMonthDegrees and -42 BritainMonthDegrees, and with 1 AlaskaMonthDegree being more than 4 BritainMonthDegrees, that’s warming on average.
They’re hypothetical numbers for illustration, not any actual prediction of which I’m aware, by the way. If that actually happened, Glasgow would be frozen from the start of November to the end of April and would have overnight frosts all year. No more rose gardens, eh?
Newfoundland may well be in a cooling zone. There are a lot of maps of temperature anomalies online. July 2010 and Jan-Sep 2001 show +1° anomalies, Dec 2013-Feb 2014 shows a -1° anomaly and 2008 in general shows a +0.4° anomaly. Florida shows not much change but California’s hotter in all of them.
They actual funny part about the new ATF 4473’s was that it came out just a short time after the Zimmerman-Martin brouhahah started with all the talk of Zimmerman being a “white- Hispanic”
The worst part was I had just gotten in 200 4473’s that where no longer legal and had to place an order for the new ones
Yeah, given the proximity I always figured it was a result of the whole Zimmerman affair…
That being said, I’m not sure there really is a legitimate reason to ask for “ethnic” or “racial” status of gun buyers. People buying guns already have to present a valid government-issued photo ID with current address for the purposes of positive identification. With that, why is there any need to ask for “race” or “ethnicity?”
lol breaking the 4th wall, also google chrome is completely fucked up for me at the moment so i can’t see no pictures and youtube doesn’t exist, i wish i could make millions of dollars an hour to not work.