Funny, that page says it's "below normal" but doesn't say how much.
The fact is, it's barely below the 1981-2010 mean.
It's about normal.
OP is pretty funny since there normally isn't ANY sea ice within about 100 miles of Alaska this time of year.
The software you are using is garbage. Applications don't HAVE to store ANYTHING in the registry -- that's the vendor of your crappy games doing that. Also, each vendor supplies an uninstaller -- obviously yours aren't doing the job. I suggest you have a talk with the thick-headed developers who write your games. Or, just join the rest of us in 2014, get an SSD and don't worry about it.
Utter nonsense. Microsoft won't certify your product UNLESS you store certain things in the registry.
Certainly you can write your programs a different way (as I do), but don't expect to get your software Microsoft certified.
No. Just no. The Second and Third amendments deal with the nation's founders being paranoid of the potential for their new government to abuse its power. Much of a government's coercive power comes from its army, so, the constitution forbade the creation of a standing national army. On the other hand the founders recognised that the nation would need a way to defend itself against threats both internal and external. Militias would be the answer to that. This is why the second amendment not only give a directive, but also a reasoning. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not that hard to understand. Unless, of course, you are intentionally failing to understand it so that it fits into your world view.
Nothing I wrote contradicts this. What makes you think it does?
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Let's not forget that parts of the Pacific coast were a little warmer than normal, too. But that doesn't imply "warming", because the majority of the U.S. was way colder than normal.
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.
The original debates, while important, were not as important as the ratification debates that came later. That is where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) came in. They explained the original meanings of many of the clauses in the Constitution, and the ratification debates used them as references.
For example, during the ratification debates it became clear that many states would not ratify UNLESS the Constitution was interpreted to mean that there would be no Federal control of arms at all, and that States had the power to oppose the Federal government if it overstepped its Constitutional bounds... Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. (The latter was made clearer later by Jefferson and Madison.)
This much is clear: the Constitution would never have been ratified if it hadn't been made abundantly clear that the Federal government is a tool of the collective States, not the other way around. The Federal government has the authority allowed it by the States, and no more.
Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line.
You need to take some history lessons. The Second Amendment wasn't written by the South. And the writers of the Constitution had to acknowledge that in the day it was written, there was no way it would be ratified by the States if they tried to abolish slavery immediately and directly.
But if you notice, it was written in such a way that it guaranteed rights to every person... making it easy to amend it later to abolish slavery. They didn't HAVE to write it that way, you know.
The Second Amendment was written because the British government tried to control arms in order to suppress dissent and rebellion. Our Founding Fathers understood that denying arms to the people, no matter what excuse is given for it, is always a tool of oppression.
So if I download lots of copyrighted music and films, but never listen to them -- then I'm apparently okay right?
OP's basic premise is BS. It is not possible to "redefine" common words in a government document. That's not the way the law works.
Words have accepted meanings. In Common Law countries like the U.S., it is the original MEANING of a statute, or section of the Constitution, for example, that is the governing factor.
Official (like the President) do not have authority to "change" a law simply by saying "I think this word means something different now than when the law was passed." It doesn't matter what he thinks or how he tries to re-define it. What matters is what the ORIGINAL AUTHORS of the legislation meant when they wrote it.
It's just another example of the Whitehouse ignoring Constitutional law, and going off in its own rogue direction.
This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that weren't true, there would be no way to detect this difference
You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? Because if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. That's not the "difference" they measure.
And that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And... that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own equations.
Once again, Jane insists electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Once again, Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.
NO. That is NOT what I claimed, and that is not what I am claiming. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means.
I do not claim "no" radiation is absorbed. To repeat once again: no NET power from radiation is absorbed. Those are 2 completely different claims. You keep saying I claim the former, when I've actually only claimed the latter. And by now, there can be no remaining misunderstanding about that. You are simply lying. Again.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Prof. Brown. Now Jane claims that Prof. Brown is spreading "garbage" that contradicts just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. But Jane certainly isn't arguing with Prof. Brown or Dr. Shore or even me. Perish the thought.
No, I am not arguing with them right now, as I made clear. I was arguing with YOU about Spencer's experiment. And you lost the argument.
When A is warmer than B, (Ta^4 - Tb^4) yields a positive number. Which means all NET radiative energy transfer goes from A to B. That is clearly indicated by the minus sign, and is further dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no NET energy going from B to A. Only when B is hotter than A does any NET energy transfer in the other direction.
A high-schooler can easily understand this. It's simple subtraction.
Further, by the same equation the temperature (T) of warmer A does not depend on the cooler B. And as the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature-power relation (e*s)*T^4 clearly implies, the power output of A also does not depend on B.
Power output of A at a given temperature Ta is independent of B. Changing the temperature of B (as long as it remains cooler) does not affect the power output of A. This is exactly where you have been getting it wrong, by trying to use a heat transfer equation rather than a power output equation.
This is textbook stuff, and you're getting it wrong. Period. I don't give the slightest damn whether your precious professors agree or disagree. My argument was with YOU.
I haven't used moderator points in over a year. But the fact that Jane is so convinced I am that he's cussing and screaming in ALL CAPS is emblematic of Jane's reasoning problems, just like when Jane was absolutely convinced that I'm a six-headed hydra.
It fit the pattern I saw in the past. It's possible that it was someone else. Just not very likely.
You are taking this a step to far.Do you know how to live off the Grid?
GP was being sarcastic. However, it's true that it's an alarming trend. And it's only a trend because people have allowed it to be.
"Owning" a phone is much more complex than owning a plunger.
I *OWN* my phone. It's rooted and unlocked, and I do what *I* want with it, not what some large corporation thinks I should do with it. They get the information I want to give them, and little else.
It's time to take back "things"! Say NO to subscription services. Say NO to term contracts. Buy it, own it, do what you want with it.
In the general sense, this kind of regulation is nanny-state micromangement.
I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with my argument. They chose their particular waste management methods. They choose to enforce them. We might disagree with the law but it's not your law or mine.
Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.
Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.
Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are completely unrelated to heat transfer via "back-radiation", and are 100% irrelevant to Spencer's experiment.
His mention of "empirical evidence" isn't science, it's an assertion of correlation without any causal link. It's a ridiculously weak argument... in fact it's not really an argument at all.
But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?
And this is downright hilarious in context. In incorrectly "solving" Spencer's challenge, YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. I repeat: I checked your final "answer" for temperature of the heat source and it violates both the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the second law of thermodynamics.
Further, what he was referring to in the latter paragraph were the comments in the forum... not Latour's analysis.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.
So? I'm still not arguing with him. I'm not even arguing with you. I've already showed you to be wrong. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working.
When a body is in equilibrium with its surroundings, it radiates and absorbs energy at the same rate and so its temperature remains constant. When a body is hotter than its surroundings, it radiates more energy than it absorbs, and so it cools..."
NONE of the bodies in Spencer's challenge are "in equlibrium" with their surroundings. None of them. Not one. Straw-man.
Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?
Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. You might be interested in THIS, which explains how IR pyrometers work. Hint: they don't work the way you seem to think they do.
And it's a straw-man in a different way: I repeat that I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body. What I claimed, I repeat, is that no NET radiative energy transfer occurs from cooler bodies to warmer. That concept does not conflict with the ability of infrared cameras or pyrometers to detect "cooler" radiation. Energy can be absorbed and re-emitted... and often (for non-gray-bodies) it is re-emitted in different wavelengths. But the fact remains that there is still no NET energy transfer from cooler to warmer. If there were, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
My argument has always been about NET heat transfer. I have explained to you many times that I do NOT claim no radiation from cooler bodies is ever absorbed. My argument is, and has been, about NET. And further, contrary to your own assertions, since the NET energy transfer from cooler bodies is ZERO, it is not included in the "radiative power out" term of heat transfer equations. Which is a concept that (apparently, if we assume you're being honest, which I doubt) you have had supreme difficulty getting through your head.
So just knock off the straw-man crap. You're very good at it, but I'm better at seeing it than you are at dishing it out.
Jane/Lonny Eachus wins a silver medal in psychological projection for telling me to "be a man for a change" but Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan still takes the gold.
And the ad-hominem too. You can claim all you want that your personal attacks have nothing to do with your arguments, but you have many times proved otherwise. Just knock off the bullshit. It isn't getting you anywhere.
What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.