BTW, according to NOAA satellites, 2019 was the 14th hottest year and 2018 was the 23rd hottest year.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/la...
Personally, I think the satellite data set is better - it is harder to mess with, avoids the problems of only measuring near humans, and measures more of the system in question.
But again, none of this really says anything about proving CO2 based AGW.
Sort of - this is where the real dragons lay.
If you take a chaotic process and average it, you get noise out. So it has not been demonstrated that averaging out the weather (almost certainly a chaotic process) produces anything of value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is an open question weather (sic
As I stated in a prior post, this has been true for most years for the last 200 years or so. "It is warmer" does not provide evidence for CO2 based AGW, since it has been getting warmer for at least 200 years.
This is not a statistically valid way to confirm CO2 based global warming. For example, according to human measurements that I have access to:
Members of the class of years in the "five hottest years on record"
* Every year from 1850-1855
* Every year from 1866-1870
* Every year from 1877-1878
* Every year from 1887-1888
* Every year from 1896-1897
* Every year from 1913-1914
* 1921
* Every year from 1926-1928
* Every year from 1936-1944
etc, etc
The global temperature appears to have had a positive slope for at least 200 years. If anything, that falsifies CO2 based global warming because there was warming before there was abnormally high CO2. So the warming trend of the last 200 years should raise the bar for confirming CO2 based warming, not be used as evidence. (As in, you need more than "it is warmer", because "it will be warmer" was the best guess prior to any thought of CO2 base warming)
Um, no. -50 in Chicago is news. Coldest weather in all time for those days, coldest in many decades overall.
You obviously haven't read the science...
The equator roughly speaking stays the same. What happens is that cold areas get a little warmer.
So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)
This - go and read the original IPCC reports. They are online, you can download them for yourself.
Almost every prediction made has been falsified. The temperature is nowhere near what they predicted, way outside the 99% confidence interval. And yet they are right this time?
Let me know when they are consistently right. At this point, they will need to make a lot of correct predictions in a row - after all, random chance should make them right half the time anyway.
OK, but he could say "there is a caravan of people coming, which amounts to an army threatening invasion, and the easiest way to deal with it is a wall."
That would be within his purview and emergency powers, at least close enough that it would likely pass supreme court review (in the current court, of course).
Just because you don't want something to happen doesn't mean it won't.
Indeed, it appears that the most dangerous forms of skin cancer are not typically caused by the sun. Sun induced cancers tend to be easy to treat.
Sorry to hear about your father-in-law.
By the way, all the recent studies are showing that vitamin D supplements to not give health benefits. It looks like the sun exposure was causing the benefits, so taking away the exposure and replacing it with supplements doesn't work.
Interesting enough, I just read an article on how getting more sun is proving to be extremely beneficial, and that a lot of the cardiac issues darker skins folks have are likely caused by their skin blocking the sun!
https://www.outsideonline.com/...
It appears that the risk of death by skin cancer for too much sun is overwhelmed by the risk of cardiac issues from too little.
Money quotes "People with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have significantly higher rates of virtually every disease and disorder you can think of: cancer, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, depression, cognitive impairment, autoimmune conditions, and more." and "Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials
Moderation!
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
No, see my other comment. They can tow the truck with the wheels completely locked up.
It isn't about power, it's about friction on the wheels. If the two vehicles have roughly the same friction coefficient, the Tesla wins because it is heavier. It also has higher starting torque, but that doesn't actually matter because the truck's wheels will be free-spinning while it is dragged forward.
This should be stated more clearly: Tesla Model X easily tows Chevy Silverado 1500 with the Chevy's rear wheels locked!
Pretty cool!
Although I don't see the point of ICEing. Is this people trying to be stupid for stupid's sake?
Of course all of those things can be simulated by a normal computer program - it's just physics. If we can simulate a rocket to land men on the moon, why can't we simulate a brain!
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
