To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
Only because you love the arctic sea ice extent argument so much. This is for you.
Scientific facts; -6 F this AM in southern wisconsin, ice on back porch is still good for Boodles/tonic/lime.
IIRC, the Arctic temps are now at new high records, daily.
OP/ED; cold is good. Warm is good. Cold drinks are better. Happy Friday!
While there are claims that the planet is not warming we get reminders every day that it ishttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-51500692
And also for those who claim the planet is not warminghttps://www.cnn.com/travel/article/snow-skiing-climate-change-intl/index...
Hey dmm1240, after reading your comments on the single payer system, this leaves me with some questions for you. You seem to be convinced that having just one insurance company (Medicare For All) is all that is needed for health care. If that is true, then why don't we just have one insurance company for auto insurance? Get rid of the profit incentive and lower overhead costs like Medicare For All. Look how much lower our auto insurance will be. We'll just call that one "Autos For All." And while at it, lets have just one insurance company to cover our homes. We'll call that one "Homes For All." FEMA is already covering home flooding. So, why not let FEMA just go ahead and take over all of our home insurance. Think of all of the overhead that would be eliminated. Get rid of the profit incentive. Would that not work out as well as Medicare For All?
Bottom line, why don't we just nationalize the entire insurance industry? Think of how much simpler that would be. No need to do any shopping around and do cost comparison. Get rid of the profit incentive. Get rid of competition. Just let the nationalized insurance program give you the set prices for health care, home and auto. If you don't like the price or service you are getting, just suck it up. It is all for the "greater good."
Anybody beginning to see a picture yet?
By the way, while in Dallas during the past few days, I saw a boatload of Teslas there. Not like 2-3 of them. More like 15-20 of them!
@Mitch. You are comparing apples to oranges. The only similarity is that they are both called insurance. Health insurance is a right whereas car insurance is a privilege. If you don’t have health insurance you get harmed and you die. If you don’t have car insurance and you have an accident you pay lot’s of money for a new car or you Uber. You don’t get physically harmed. With both you harm others if you don’t have insurance. Without health insurance you infect others with untreated diseases. With car insurance most states make it mandatory to carry insurance for motorists you may harm. You can carry collision only insurance without covering yourself. It’s the principle of allowing the free market to work with the government interfering where it is in the public interest
@SCCRENDO. What is a "right?" Well, the only way to deal with that question is to go to the founding of our nation and abide by the rule book, aka, The Constitution. Under the Bill of Rights, nowhere will you find a "right" to healthcare. Just because you make the declaration that healthcare is a right does not make it so.
I could say, "I have a right to protest Bernie Sanders" on your front yard. That is what I call "free speech." Just because I make that proclamation does not make it so. Why? Well, there are other factors involved such as your right to private property and to live in peace. You are protected from the likes of me standing on your front yard leading a protest. There are restrictions to free speech that have been tested in the courts.
"Right" to healthcare? What the heck does that mean? Let's say if there is a hard-working middle class American who has played by the rules and payed his health insurance premium for all of his working life. Now, compare that to somebody else who chose not to pay his health care premium. And he just waits until he gets sick, and then signs up for the same health insurance plan as the hard-working American. Because of his pre-existing condition, he gets all of the privileges as the hard-working American who has payed into the system all of his life. The freeloader gets all of the benefits with his healthcare claim without having to pay into the system. This has the effect of raising the health insurance premium on the responsible American who payed into it all of his life to cover the cost of the guy who freeloaded the system.
This was the main problem with Obamacare. And Rand Paul accurately and systematically broke down the problems of Obamacare based on the issue of people waiting until they got sick before they signed up.
It would be like me waiting until my house flooded BEFORE signing up for flood insurance, then expect all of the benefits from making an unjust flood insurance claim. Or, waiting for a tornado to tear the roof of my house off before signing up for home insurance. Then make a claim on the tornado damage. This would destroy the home and flood insurance industry if this was allowed.
SCCRENDO, you and your fellow "left-of-political-center" types should be careful about what you call a "right." Because that concept can be so seriously twisted, distorted, and abused.
It has nothing to do with the constitution. It is a moral right. 200 years later it is time to redefine morality.
" Under the Bill of Rights, nowhere will you find a "right" to healthcare."
Nor a M-16 or AR-47.
It has everything to do with the Constitution. The rights are listed there. If you want a new right added to the Bill of Rights, there is a process to do that. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. You vision of morality may not be the same as somebody else's. So, we have a rule book to deal with these differences of opinions on rights.
If one can claim a "right" to something that isn't covered by the Constitution, then everybody and their dog will make claims on just about everything, and our experiment in a democratic republic will have failed.
@Mitch, they were barely past the use of leeches to bleed out diseases. "Medical care" in the 18th century was nothing like today. The FF's could not have anticipated those changes.
Just like they could not and did not anticipate WMDs in the hands of nuts that hate anyone who disagrees with them.
rxlawdude, semi-automatic rifles are considered to be "arms" are they not? It is up to the courts to determine what are legal firearms and what aren't. Examples - An M1-A1 tank. An RPG. A fully automatic machine gun.
Question - does putting a pistol grip and a flash suppressor on a semi-automatic rifle make it illegal? Some people say yes. Some people say no. It just basically boils down to some people hating the law-abiding owning guns, and they want those firearms confiscated.
You can live your life according to how people behaved in the past or try do what is rationale. In biblical days they stoned people to death, enjoyed slaves, killed gays and sacrificed animals. Some of us do what is morally correct.
Question - does putting a pistol grip and a flash suppressor on a semi-automatic rifle make it illegal?
Only if it turns that semi-automatic into a virtual automatic. See bump stocks.
As to what qualifies as arms, you're okay with courts determining what an "arm" is. Let's see your reaction when semi-automatics are no longer considered "arms" you have a right to without registration. May take 10 years or more for the Trumptarded appointees to begin being flushed out of the judicial branch. But rational heads will eventually prevail.
That's when your side starts its revolution. I'll get the popcorn.
rxlawdude, Trump already took action against bump stocks.
In September 2019 (Day 258), according to MASIE data the minimum sea ice extent in the Central Arctic region was 2,950,024.55 km^2.
Science question - will 274 deg. K be enough to melt the Arctic ice below 1,000,000 km^2 this century? I say no. What say you human-caused global warming alarmists?
I say the volume of the arctic ice has decreased over the last 30 years.
If you scroll down, you can see which regions where the ice has declined. But in the Central Arctic, that ice is here to stay.
volume is km^3. Which has decreased over the last 30 years.
I don’t think he knows the difference between area and volume. Denier science is effective when they talk to people who have no understanding of the facts and cannot read graphs.
What does the Central Arctic sea ice area diagram tell you SCCRENDO?
It tells me that you cherry pick one image. You should have cherry picked this graphhttp://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20NHandSHandTOTALiceExtension12m...
It tells me that you think surface area coverage is more important than the volume of the ice in the region.
@Andy. It tells us that he searches through articles to find some graph or picture that he thinks will fool us. Sadly for him the links he quotes usually contradict the nonsense he posts.
isnt that great?
Except for the fact that many do not understand the science and those who want to deny climate change believe him.
i mean isnt it great that he contradicts himself
I disagree. I prefer understanding and honesty among those I disagree with. People are entitled to have different opinions. But their opinions are worthless if they are indefensible. I am open to hearing theories that climate change is not real. And wouldn’t it be nice if they were correct. However I have yet to see any good studies or data supporting climate change denial.
I just read there's a desperate shortage of STEM teachers. Perhaps that is the root cause of @Mitch's disconnect with science and fact? (Yes, there were no STEM programs when he went to school. Pity.)
And likely avoided any science courses that they had
Hey SCCRENDO, rxlawdude, andy, I've already addressed the rapid Antarctic sea ice decline to you before. It just passed you by, i.e., in one ear and out the other. Have another look at it on a different scale.
Now tell me seriously, do you think the almighty CO2 molecule did that? And, is it anything to get alarmed about when viewed from a scale that gives you a broader perspective?
The NSIDC explains the event. Scroll down to "Antarctic sea ice reaches winter maximum on a record early date."
The rapid Antarctic sea ice decline occurred shortly after it reach its satellite era maximum. The outer edges were thin, and easily collapsed with strong poleward wind components.
It is difficult to get through to the dense skulls of global warming alarmists.
Sorry i only see ice extent, which is surface area. Volume is key here.
Viking grew barley in Greenland when climate was warmer.
Oranges were grown along and north of the northern Gulf coast when climate was warmer. That is how Orange Beach, AL got its name.
And mammoths & other species of mega mammals used to live in siberia where the grass is now only a couple inches high. We call that climate change.
Climate is always changing. It has always changed in the past. The global temperature has always gone one way or the other in the past, and will continue to do so. To raise alarm about something that has been going on for several million years is nothing but irrational hysteria.
Never in the history of the planet has a species been able to extract millions of years of dead organic material and dumb it into the atmosphere. Irrational hysteria? Its irrational to think our actions dont have consequences.
The Little Ice Age finished off the Vikings in Greenland.
The Greenland climate used to be considerably warmer than today just a mere 1000 years ago.
Can you imagine the consequences of burning wood to heat our homes and cook our food? Fossil fuel burning is by far the better alternative. That is something you silly global warming alarmists never think about. I have to keep reminding you of that to attempt at getting through to your dense skulls.
Trees are on the surface. Billions of gallons of oil is millions of years of super concentrated decomposed trees. Are you functionally capable of understanding the difference? We can grow a tree and cut it down and thats net zero carbon. Can you get that through your dense skull?
No andy. This is where you are dense. What would happen to our forests if we were still burning wood as our primary source of energy? Don't think too hard!
Another thing for you silly global warming alarmists to think about is whale oil. What would have happed to the whales if John D. Rockefeller didn't develop kerosene? Don't think too hard!
Either we would run out of trees or we would find a way to plant them as fast as we use them. The point you ignored was that what we're doing with oil, is burning trillions of trees in equivalence in oil that are buried underground.
Well, well, well, guess who showed up in Pasadena, CA to make a speech about Climate Change? None other than the great climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer!
He gave a presentation at the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute. There were about 120 senior asset managers there representing about $25 trillion in investments. They initially wanted to set up a debate, but nobody wanted to go against Spencer!
Here is his PowerPoint presentation.
All went well during and after the presentation in enemy territory!
All-time 20.75C Antarctic record high temperature probably not valid -
Hey Mitch. You sound like the stone age guy t complaining about the use of metals in the bronze age. Remember, the stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones. Just like the fossil fuel age needs to end long before the world runs out of fossil fuels.
cave men definitely ran out of stone
No they didn't!!!