iNow

Yeah, they were trying to throw him out based on a vote of no confidence, and before they could, he just suspended the legislature. Apparently, the Queen of England even signed off on it.

I'm not inclined to spend my time searching for sources when a) you start off with a quote like the above, b) you very significantly misrepresent the position I actually put forward ("Do you have a source that the risk is higher there than anywhere else in the US?"), c) Lance has not shared sources for his assertions, yet no staff has reinforced my request, and d) you gave bascule a hard time just for calling a spade a spade via clever use of satire. I figure if Lance is not going to be held accountable to find a source for a claim like: it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%. ...then I'm sure not going to bother wasting my time finding a citation for: Ah... the joys of a thread in which SkepticLance participates. Always so crisp and focussed.

I don't know much about metaphysics. You posted in the physics forum, so I thought that's what we were discussing. Perhaps you should open a thread in the Speculations or General Discussion forum which asks that question.

Not that we've observed or measured, no. AFAIK, it's just the math right now. Just a model. Once we've seen it happen or have empirical evidence confirming it, then we can start worrying about potential paradoxes and causality issues. But, for now, it's just a result of the math.

I think you've engaged in a bit of equivocation by suggesting that the Big 3 in Detroit are the same as individual citizens who are part of a social minority, but I give you credit for the injection of humor. Obviously, a corporation is not guaranteed the same rights as an individual citizen, nor are heterosexual corporations being given bailouts but homosexual corporations (which are equal on all other measures) being denied bailouts on account of their sexuality alone. <Note: I'll be sharing a link from tonight's The Daily Show in the Prop 8 thread tomorrow when it becomes available. Jon Stewart had Gov Mike Huckabee on and discussed that very issue. It was an interesting exchange.>

Probably because what he's talking about is simply a result of the math... of our descriptions... of our models of the universe... not an actual phenomenon being observed or measured.

Well, I did reply to your post about it, didn't I?

Math. Ways of looking at things. A model.

Geeesh... I think I should have wished for more wishes, instead. That was quick. Thanks, Cap'n.

Indeed, nowhere is safe. However, there are a few places with a significantly higher probability of damage being caused by natural/environmental conditions. Lance cited Galveston, I cited NOLA. Those were the only two locales under the umbrella of discussion until only the last few posts. Btw... I didn't know you before, but welcome back.

Round and round we go... Just b/c the Earth goes through natural climatic cycles (which NOBODY here denies) does not mean that the huge volumes of CO2 we humans are crapping into the atmosphere has no effect. It's basic physics, and verified through spectroscopy. Would you like to phone a friend or poll the audience? I truly suggest you try a lifeline of some sort, because you're off to a bad start.

Okay, you can build a house in the mouth of a volcano for all I care, but stop asking for my tax money to rebuild it every time it gets destroyed. Nothing defeatist about my attitude. I'm being pragmatic. It's like calling me a fascist for telling you it's smarter to wear a seat belt when riding in a car.

So crew, when's SFN planning to start celebrating the next winter solstice?

I'm not sure how it's relevant to the thread, but you're quite right. If I had money right now, I'd be gobbling up foreclosure homes like pac-man. My bosses brother is doing exactly that. He's bought like 7 or 8 in just the past few months. No need to even sell the primary residence...

What a thought provoking question, npts. My initial impression is that the banks don't loan money in the amount needed. When's the last time you ran down to the credit union to request $20 billion? Also, too high a risk. Any loan officer that agreed to approve a loan with such minimal likelihood of return (high likelihood for default) is an idiot and probably was involved in a major way with the housing crisis. Finally, the banks need to reach the maximum number of people possible to bring the liquidity you referenced, and giving all of their recently acquired funds to the Big 3 would negate that broad impact. Sorry to be such a buzz kill. I thought it was a really cool question. I then started thinking about possible reasons, and sort of ruined my own good feelings. I like your style, though. That's what banks are there for, after all.

Hey, right on, interstellar! Thanks. I've set it to record. Cheers.

Still waiting on a source for your assertion: it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%.

Let's see your math in support of that. "Not really terribly likely to be sufficient" is hardly quantized. General question - Should I have stuck to what I said when I commented "We are done here?" Your argument equates to saying that it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%. Can we please see a source in support of this? Then, once you've supplied a source, I'd like to hear you explain how this "one degree C" is the more relevant factor than that quoted in my previous source which explicity discussed how storm intensity is based on a threshold, not a linear increase. In other words, temps can increase quite a lot and do nothing, but once past this threshold, intensity magnification is profound. Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form. Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins. Again, can't we just be done here now? You're just wasting my time, because I've said nothing invalid thus far.

Righto. I suppose that's what I get for being lazy and not exploring more of my google hits while sitting in a meeting at work. Disregard the Time piece (tee hee), that's fine. Here's more on the point I was making: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/111816/4408 Global warming has long been predicted to make hurricanes more intense. Well, now we are seeing more intense hurricanes. Chris Mooney has a great post on the recent storm surge of Category 5 hurricanes, now that Felix has joined that once-elite club. He notes: There have now been 8 Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the past 5 years (Isabel, Ivan, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix). There have been two Atlantic Category 5s so far this year; only three other seasons have had more than one (1960, 1961, 2005). There have been 8 Atlantic Category 5 hurricanes so far in the 2000s; no other decade has had so many. The closest runner up is the 1960s with 6 (Donna, Ethel, Carla, Hattie, Beulah, Camille). Some people, especially the Deniers, think this is all a coincidence, or the result of incomplete data from earlier years. Here's why I don't: Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form. Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins. Equally important, one of the ways that hurricanes are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane's own violent action. But if the deeper water is also warm, it doesn't weaken the hurricane. In fact, it may continue to intensify. Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus creating ideal conditions for a hurricane to survive and thrive in its long journey from tropical depression to Category 4 or 5 superstorm. More that the link, and also plenty of others to substantiate my position. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844 Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade. I suppose your next step will be to suggest that we cannot trust the journal Science? Clearly, the only possible explanation is that they are wrong since they've reported that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased 80% in the past 30 years. Finally, even if I grant you that the 80% figure is too high, you'll fail in the argument since my primary point is that stronger categories of hurricanes/cyclones are more common. ALL available and valid/accurate data support this point, so we're done here.

This is another one of those math word problems that Lance has such trouble with. He equates an "if/then" statement with a prediction, hence his tangential attempt at rebuttal. The quote again: The Nature researchers estimate that every 1 degree C increase in sea-surface temperature would result in a 31% increase in the global frequency of category 4 and 5 storms. Given that computer models indicate that ocean temperatures could rise by up to 2 degrees C by 2100, those are scary calculations. It's especially worrying because the most intense storms do the most damage by far — several minor storms can equal the damage of a single severe hurricane. "The category 1 or 2 storms don't do that much," says Emanuel. "It's the 3 and 4 storms that really do the damage, and we could see more of them." A quote which was shared in support of my comments to John regarding the important measurement being hurricane intensity, and the increasing frequency of stronger hurricanes (category 4 & 5), not overall frequency or hurricanes of all categories.

Try reading the article (and the quote I supplied). It was based on data published in the journal Nature. See above. Bye bye, Lance.

Not as bad as reproducing beyond what our available resources can sustain. Since we crested the point which our planet could actually sustain decades ago, I'd say any argument in favor or maintaining current reproduction rates (status quo) falls flat on it's face due to a lack of connection with reality.

While the primary factor is a night of sleep after the learning/practice, both in fact are important. Getting a good night sleep the night(s) prior to the learning/practice will better prime the mind to perform the task and retain the information. So, despite the after sleep being the more prominent contributor to the effect, getting better sleep before is also important.

Hurricane frequency has not gone up, but hurricane intensity has. If you look only at high intensity storms, those have increased in frequency dramatically. Intensity is the revelant bit, not gross number of storms. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839281,00.html So far, tropical ocean temperatures have risen by about 0.5 degree C since 1970, which could explain the more powerful storms. The Nature researchers estimate that every 1 degree C increase in sea-surface temperature would result in a 31% increase in the global frequency of category 4 and 5 storms. Given that computer models indicate that ocean temperatures could rise by up to 2 degrees C by 2100, those are scary calculations. It's especially worrying because the most intense storms do the most damage by far — several minor storms can equal the damage of a single severe hurricane. "The category 1 or 2 storms don't do that much," says Emanuel. "It's the 3 and 4 storms that really do the damage, and we could see more of them."

And I can't help but agree. You're hitting nails on heads. Phi's clarification about not necessarily "wanting" it is also good, but the bigger point is that we are being screwed by our "representative" government, as they are not representing us. In fact, they are going explicitly against the desires of the majority. Good grief.