Meanwhile in the Arctic

[BIGUN 1,424]

18 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'd be for that, as long as I could deduct it from their pay. Also a means test for some seems reasonable. The thing is that all ya'all who based your retirements on your kids being taxed are going to need someone else's kids adding to the pot. I'm thinking that the color of those kids will wane in importance.

OK, so are we keeping or ridding the 13th Amendment? Just trying to keep accurate notes. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

18 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Did being a double-doozey genius from Oxford help?

Is that like a Hereford? Angus?

[BIGUN 1,424]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

My bad. I guess its been a while since i was at a Walmart. I made the reference to better represent the great unwashed average GOP voter.

The ? was more about your wording. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

OK, so are we keeping or ridding the 13th Amendment? Just trying to keep accurate notes. 

Well just imagine if trump had gone ahead and invaded Iraq just to take their oil! All those Brown Arabs would have moved to the US just like Puerto Ricans.

Seriously are runaway national debts not indentured servitude for a countries children?

[Phil1111 1,149]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The ? was more about your wording. 

Trying to make too many points in too few words. BTW here is the current Big Mac Index from the Economist. Which shows how much the current US dollar is overvalued because its the de-facto reserve currency.

[BIGUN 1,424]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well just imagine if trump had gone ahead and invaded Iraq just to take their oil! All those Brown Arabs would have moved to the US just like Puerto Ricans.

Seriously are runaway national debts not indentured servitude for a countries children?

I was being flippant. 

[BIGUN 1,424]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Which shows how much the current US dollar is overvalued because its the de-facto reserve currency.

That's not what it shows. It shows the British Pound is undervalued. :)

[kallend 2,107]

Meanwhile in the Antarctic:

https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/antarctic-sea-ice-coverage-drops-to-record-low

 

 

[airdvr 210]

Link to climate change isn't clear.

[JerryBaumchen 1,445]

19 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Link to climate change isn't clear.

Hi airdvr,

It worked for me.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Meanwhile in the Antarctic:

https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/antarctic-sea-ice-coverage-drops-to-record-low

 

 

Meanwhile in the Arctic 

While January began with sea ice extent below average, by the end of the month, extent increased…above all years since 2009. 
 

Meanwhile in the Antarctic 

“Between April and September, a research station sitting on a high plateau in Antarctica, registered an average temperature of minus 78 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 61 degrees Celsius). That's the coldest temperature recorded since record keeping began in 1957, and about 4.5 F (2.5 C) lower than the most recent 30-year average, according to The Washington Post.”

I expect better from you John.

[kallend 2,107]

 

Looks like a lot of warming in the polar regions.  

[kallend 2,107]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL097448

"Using ICESat-2 and CryoSat-2 freeboards, we examine the variability of monthly Arctic sea ice snow depth, thickness and volume between October 2018 and April 2021. For the 3 years, satellite-derived estimates captured a decrease in mean April snow depth (∼2.50 cm) and ice thickness (∼0.28 m) equivalent to an ice volume loss of ∼12.5%. Results show greater thinning of multiyear ice with an end-of-season thickness in 2021 that is lower by ∼16.1% (0.50 m), with negligible changes over first-year ice. For the period, sea ice thickness estimates using snow depth from climatology result in thicker ice (by up to ∼0.22 m) with a smaller decrease in multiyear ice thickness (∼0.38 m). An 18-year satellite record, since the launch of ICESat, points to a loss of ∼6,000 km³ or one-third of the winter Arctic ice volume driven by decline in multiyear-ice coverage in the multi-decadal transition to a largely seasonal ice cover."

[brenthutch 444]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL097448

"Using ICESat-2 and CryoSat-2 freeboards, we examine the variability of monthly Arctic sea ice snow depth, thickness and volume between October 2018 and April 2021. For the 3 years, satellite-derived estimates captured a decrease in mean April snow depth (∼2.50 cm) and ice thickness (∼0.28 m) equivalent to an ice volume loss of ∼12.5%. Results show greater thinning of multiyear ice with an end-of-season thickness in 2021 that is lower by ∼16.1% (0.50 m), with negligible changes over first-year ice. For the period, sea ice thickness estimates using snow depth from climatology result in thicker ice (by up to ∼0.22 m) with a smaller decrease in multiyear ice thickness (∼0.38 m). An 18-year satellite record, since the launch of ICESat, points to a loss of ∼6,000 km³ or one-third of the winter Arctic ice volume driven by decline in multiyear-ice coverage in the multi-decadal transition to a largely seasonal ice cover."

Absolutely terrifying, looks like we are all going to die if we don’t pay trillions in additional taxes.

[BIGUN 1,424]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Absolutely terrifying, looks like we are all going to die if we don’t pay trillions in additional taxes.

I'm not sure how you wound up here, but have to assume it involved alcohol. 

[wmw999 2,545]

Maybe countries should start having to accept climate refugees in the proportion to which they contribute to global CO2 emissions.

Wendy P. 

[metalslug 36]

33 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Maybe countries should start having to accept climate refugees in the proportion to which they contribute to global CO2 emissions.

Wendy P. 

Other than the US; refugees would then go to China, Russia,...  Do I detect a mean streak in you, Wendy ? 

[wmw999 2,545]

 Don’t worry — they’d all object loudly

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

14 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I'm not sure how you wound up here, but have to assume it involved alcohol. 

It’s called the GND, but don’t worry because with inflation being what it is…it is DOA.

[BIGUN 1,424]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s called the GND, but don’t worry because with inflation being what it is…it is DOA.

Well, I'm not a fan of AOC's GND and think we'll find a solution to lower our CO2.  Personally, I believe we can invest our way to a GND. 

[olofscience 489]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Personally, I believe we can invest our way to a GND. 

That's like instead of having an army, you just sell guns to ordinary people and hope "the free market" enables people to organise and execute complex military operations.

While it HAS happened before, there's a benefit to having actual organisation and leadership. This can also apply to lowering CO2 emissions.

[BIGUN 1,424]

6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

That's like instead of having an army, you just sell guns to ordinary people and hope "the free market" enables people to organise and execute complex military operations.

I disagree with your analogy. Mission planning and setting objectives can fuel market (shareholder) value. The government need not be "involved;" just set policy.  

[olofscience 489]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Mission planning and setting objectives can fuel market (shareholder) value.

Yes, but conversely the effects also destroy market value. Just ask the snowsports industry, for example.

I guess it's not a black/white situation - my analogy was on the extreme end, but there's a continuum between "completely relying on the free market" to "completely centrally managed by the government". I'd say that the government needs to be more involved, by setting policy, legislation, AND providing funding. While free markets are quite efficient, they also result in Nash equilibria which makes them extremely short-sighted.

[billvon 3,078]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 . . . . with inflation being what it is…it is DOA.

The US boycott of Russian oil is indeed causing additional inflation.  However it does have two huge pluses:

1) It looks like the pain we are causing Russia may in fact work, and Ukraine may be able to force Putin to a stalemate due to Putin's rapidly weakening position at the bargaining table.  Part of that weakened position is the near-collapse of the Russian economy, and our sanctions have a lot to do with that.  Yay us.

2) The high price of gas is driving people to hybrids, PHEV's and EV's.  It is becoming more and more clear that high gas prices are primarily driven by oil company profit-taking, and they are gambling on people having no other option than to buy high priced gasoline.  Once a significant part of their customer base departs for PHEV's and EV's, they are going to realize that the only way to keep customers is to drop their prices.  Plus which, more EV drivers will reduce overall demand for gasoline, putting a downward pressure on gas prices.

So I'd say it's the opposite of DOA.  Demand for EV's has never been higher, and refusing to use some of the oil available to us (specifically Russian oil) is creating huge geopolitical wins for both NATO and democracy.  Win/win.  (And another win for people who drive gas cars, since those forces will eventually drive gas prices down.)

[brenthutch 444]

29 minutes ago, billvon said:

The US boycott of Russian oil is indeed causing additional inflation.  However it does have two huge pluses:

1) It looks like the pain we are causing Russia may in fact work, and Ukraine may be able to force Putin to a stalemate due to Putin's rapidly weakening position at the bargaining table.  Part of that weakened position is the near-collapse of the Russian economy, and our sanctions have a lot to do with that.  Yay us.

2) The high price of gas is driving people to hybrids, PHEV's and EV's.  It is becoming more and more clear that high gas prices are primarily driven by oil company profit-taking, and they are gambling on people having no other option than to buy high priced gasoline.  Once a significant part of their customer base departs for PHEV's and EV's, they are going to realize that the only way to keep customers is to drop their prices.  Plus which, more EV drivers will reduce overall demand for gasoline, putting a downward pressure on gas prices.

So I'd say it's the opposite of DOA.  Demand for EV's has never been higher, and refusing to use some of the oil available to us (specifically Russian oil) is creating huge geopolitical wins for both NATO and democracy.  Win/win.  (And another win for people who drive gas cars, since those forces will eventually drive gas prices down.)

Except fossil fuel use will hit an all time high this year, and the IEA says by the year 2050 fossil fuels will still provide the majority of global energy.