Hacking has been going on for quite some time. There wasn't much of an outrage when China hacked personal info, cell phone data and military information but now it's all Russia's fault when the side that lost has been so cozy with Russia in the past. Russia just did a huge uranium deal with Clinton input. Why would they be opposed to her? The Wikileaks is then pointed to but no one has denied what was in the emails, just that they came to light. The DNC purposely tried to keep the election from Bernie Sanders. Why is that information coming to light improperly influencing the election? That is shooting the messenger for the message delivered. Hacking should absolutely be guarded against. However, no one can seem to prove it as recounts have showed and intelligence agency haven't shown either. No one is denying what was uncovered, instead they are trying to point blame in so many different directions it could make one dizzy.
it didn't put an emphasis on anything. That's just the totallity of the dataset accumulated since 1979 (probably derived from remote sensing data like Landsat). There's no other way to analyze the extent of sea ice before that point because you can't drill ice-cores, it's constantly changing, and you need an running snapshot of it derived from imagery. If you plot the data year over year (you can do this with raw data, or just toggle each year on in order, you'll see an obvious downward trend in sea ice coverage for the Arctic. One low year here, or one high year there really doesn't matter in the long-run analysis. Hell, 35-40 years is probably the bare minimum to measure any change in climate (which is just a long-run average of weather). I only provided the link so people could look at the raw data themselves. I wasn't making a qualitative statement.
Weather is a discreet event, Climate is just a trend line fitted to a long run average of those discreet measurements. If you observe an upward or downward trend in some measurable phenomena, you try to find out why. Weather and climate science is hard because there are so many variables that have to be accounted for in predictive models and algorithms. I don't know that you can say climate change is purely anthropogenic, but there's a lot of correlation between warming and the industrialization of the world and the population explosion of the last 150+ years. Then again, we could just be seeing the effects of the end of the "Little Ice-Age." Either way, if climate change is real then I'm less worried about what caused it and more worried about how do we adapt to its effects.
What was the arctic and antarctic sea ice extent 10,000 years ago vs. 150 years ago? What is the trend in between then? 150 years ago would be pre-industrial age.
Had to stop, all I hear is blah blah blah titties, blah blah blah pretty. Not, I repeat NOT her fault.
10,000 years ago is about 1,000 years after the last glacial maximum, so it's all been declining (more or less, minus a brief cooling period during 1300-1870 and a cooling spike about 8500 BCE). Some cooling periods are probably tied to increased vulcanism or possibly extraterrestrial impacts. As for historic sea ice it's very hard to know what the normal extent is/was (the old shoreline is hundreds of feet under water) but samples from terrestrial ice cores in glaciers can tell us something about the atmosphere and predominant conditions at given eras though. Edit: Also coal powered steam era is generally accepted as the dawn of the industrial era ... Though I tend to think of the population explosion of the early twentieth century as a better marker.
The gist is there was a lot (lot lot lot) more back then than now. It's been melting (warming) for thousands of years (sometimes faster, sometimes slower or reversing for a shortish time), long before industrialization. There were glaciers covering the great lakes that have receded all the way to the pole. The moral of this, IMO, is that if you zoom in on the part of the sinusoidal graph that's on the upswing, you'll think the data/trend is upward. That's the trick in math and graphs that need to be caught. You are spot on when you talked about whether the warming we see is the afterglow of the medieval warming (after the last mini ice age). It wasn't much more than a year ago when people were posting satellite pictures of California saying "drought! man made global warming!" 4 or 5 years does not a trend make. When El Nino ended, http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/29/california-drought-is-october-rain-making-a-difference/. The next interesting question is how fast was it warming 10,000 years ago? 9,000? 2,000? Does the rate accelerate?
I honestly don't care what some "retired CIA vet" from 2007 has to say about current affairs. Let alone do I trust some dip shit on twitter.
Not to mention Rasta, wasn't it your beloved deity that wanted to do a Russian "reset". Liberals need to shut the fuck up about Russia already. Or maybe they forgot about this: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
No more war! At least on our part. Unfortunately, we may be stuck finishing off ISIS. ISIS grew from virtually dead to an occupying force requiring years of war by Clinton and Obama policies.
if we "finish off" isis, their children will hate us just as much. then we have to "finish them off" too. and so on, forever. the solution is to leave them alone, and let them find a new boogeyman to focus their jihad on. and it doesnt "require" shit from us. its like 50k people. if the middle east hates them so much, they could easily wipe them out with fucking swords and hammers if they wanted to. our reason for involvement is that we dont want another country to swoop in and steal their (our) oil. always has been, always will. at least our new SOS will make the russians do all the atrocity type war crime fun though. so we can keep our soft hands clean.
I don't think this is right at all. We don't give a shit about their oil. I don't know if we even import much anymore. ISIS is clearly an existential threat to the US as long as it exists. Through the end of 2015, ISIS has committed 143 attacks in 29 countries, killing 2,043. Including some horrific attacks in the US (gay night club, Boston Marathon, etc.). Yes, Obama and Clinton made that. ISIS isn't going stop these kinds of attacks.
ISIS grew from the Israeli Palestinian cold war just like Al Quaeda and all the other cells and jihadists....you think Bush Cheney had no responsibility for our current war against terrorists? Think it was a money grap distraction created by Obama and the Clinton Foundation? Whew.....you're running out of material...this shit started with the war between Egypt and Israel and has continued in Gaza since the 60s.....these guys aren't really an occupying force as much as they are guerillas.....appearing and disappearing in Syria....Lebanaon...France.....Texas....everywhere actually. We support the Israeli lobby and have forever....this is why we are considered the great Satan by fundamentalist fanatics all over the planet....they don't have a territory..they will spread their chaos wherever they can
Whatever Bush/Cheney did, ISIS (al qaeda Iraq) was vanquished. It took Clinton and Obama policies to discourage Iraqis from supporting their government and encourage them to join ISIS. From vanquished to 50,000 strong and a huge swath of land as caliphate. Those are the facts.
