lawrocket

Moo skies, Lisa. We were better with you..

Overall there is stasis. Obviously, the trends on the Peninsula also affect the balance. But there are factors other than AGW at work. Attached is an image showing satellite altimetry on top and gravitometry on the bottom. If it was a global climate thing, one would expect there to be more uniformity of results. There is not real pattern, though. It looks a bit jumbled. But just the image is an indication of the subtlety. Mass gain and loss is all over the place. Antarctica is losing mass. This is not incorrect. Antarctica is gaining ice mass. Also not incorrect. It's like saying North America is experiencing a drought. The evidence is all over the place. It's the nice part about it. There is evidence to support the theory that you artfully described. And evidence contrary. It's a lot of personal perception, which is great so long as there is some sound reasoning behind it. But pigeonholing is the easiest way to miss something. I predicate your mind on this and the education you provide. My wife is hotter than your wife.

100% agree with Wendy. I agree, as well. Unfortunately, BLM has been perverted on all sides. If you think black lives matter means nothing else matters, then the problem is with you. My kids matter. It doesn't mean my wife doesn't matter. And isn't it kind of ironic that the white racists and black racists read blacklivesmatter to be the same message? My wife is hotter than your wife.

Regarding point 1 - there is a crucial thing that it being missed in this discussion. Glacier life and stability is determined by two factors: (1) accretion; and (2) ablation. -40 degrees is an important number. Not only is it where C and F intersect, but it is also the point at which water vapor has been almost entirely precipitated. The atmosphere at that temperature simply cannot hold water vapor. This is the reason why Antarctica is a desert. Because it doesn't snow at -50. Or -40. All precipitation has been lost at the coast. You will agree with me on this. Hence the accretion of glaciers is an exceedingly slow process at their origin in Antarctica. The glacier accretes more and more as it goes downhill and toward the coast where there is a greater chance for precipitation. At some point, as it gets more temperate in climate the. It may a late more than it accretes. This brings some sense to it. Fast flowing outlet glaciers like Totten and Philipi are losing mass at present. Slower flowing areas in East Africa, like Enderby land, are gaining ice mass. Which makes sense. So that is where Part 1 is not entirely the case. However, the rest of your explanation is fine. It makes sense. Nevertheless, the explanation does not accoun for the increased precipitation with rising water and air temperatures. Meaning that the result will likely be not nearly so dramatic. The system that you described is understandable and sensible. But is also facile in light of its failure to discuss accretion. (Note: with those factors we would expect to see sea/shelf ice drop, since it forms by wholly different process than glaciers, which rely on precipitation). My wife is hotter than your wife.

You understand the difference between a glacier and the glacier tongue, right? The seawater is warmer and goes under the Totten Glacier tongue, thinning it. This is where climate reporting has gotten us. The Totten Glacier is something like 800 miles long and 500 miles wide. So sea water encroachment occurs at the base, where the tongue is. Piss poor reporting. But certainly fits with the narrative. Sea water, warm sea water, is going to climb up the underside of a a glacier hundreds of miles and slide it. Recall that sea water flows downhill? There is some cohesion but find me some seawater that flowed a few hundred miles inland under a glacier and I'll reconsider. I really wish science reporters would quit selling shit like this aimed squarely at the believers. It's like there is a touring group of reformed faith healers out there promising eternal damnation instead. In twenty years all the ice in Antarctica will be gone. Right. Because glaciers now melt from the top down and slide, instead of a laying from the bottom up. The last remnants of glaciers in Antarctica will be on the coastlines. Don't think so. My wife is hotter than your wife.

True. This is a very oversimplified calculation. But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen. What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland? Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens. You do not need to melt it... that will happen after the water intrudes under the ice which will provide lubrication to allow huge quantities of ancient ice currently sitting on land to slide off into the ocean since the floating ice sheet that previously was preventing that is now going away. That will provide a very quick rise in sea level further exacerbating the process for more of the ice to move. There is 4800 METERS thick Ice in places in Antarctica yet at the the South Pole itself is only 2700 meters thick depressing the landmass there down to near sea level other places the volume of ice has depressed the land mass down below sea level. Oh. So Global Warming is going to melt the ice under 4800 meters of it. I get it. Because atmospheric heating will go through the ice and hit the rock underneath, warming it, and causing the ice to slide. And in twenty years or so. My goodness, Jeanne. My wife is hotter than your wife.

True. This is a very oversimplified calculation. But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen. What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland? Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Right. And Patti Reagan did way more than that. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Facts are a great thing..... And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607 Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia... Amazon. Put down the Kool Aid. None of our posterity will ever see anything like all the ice melting. It's a simple matter of math (which is something most environmentalists are bad at. Spending ten minutes going through it instead of bitching about the Koch brothers may prove enlightening. Allow me to do the work for you. Okay. HEre goes. Average high temperature for the year is -49 F in Antarctica. I will give benefit of doubt and be conservative and go with that as a baseline (the average temperature is way lower). Heck, let's call it -40 C for an additional margin of error (-40 C matches with -40F). Let's also go on the high end and assume climate CO2 sensitivity is 4C. That is, doubling CO2 concentration will increase temperature 4 degrees Celsius. That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high temperature to around 0 degrees C. Assume let's start at 400ppm (which is in the press). Let's go through the CO2 concentrations required for a 40C temp increase to bring average Antarctic high temperature to the freezing point. (1) 400ppm, (2) 800 ppm (3) 1600 ppm (4) 3200 ppm (5) 6400 ppm (fatal to humans with long exposure) (6) 12800 ppm (fatal to humans within a couple of minutes at this level) (7) 25600 ppm (8) 51200 ppm (9) 102400 ppm (10) 204800 ppm (yes, CO2 will have to be 20% of the atmosphere) So the math is really quite easy. All it takes is just a fundamental understanding of the processes involved. This is what it would take to warm Antarctica just to an average freezing temperature for its average high. If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature. So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm. yours is the type of tripe that unfortunately has taken hold in popular belief. People like you think that the science has ordained that all the ice will melt by the time my grandkids are born. Your ideas are what pass for the popular understanding of science nowadays. And ironically, it's typically people who believe this crap who think that they have an appreciation of science greater than someone like me who says "that's utter hogwash." You've said what a politician would say. But I assure you, Iran has a better chance of developing a nuke in the next decade that any human has the opportunity of seeing all the ice melt. This is also why the alarmist community is not believed by anyone with analytical ability. No, I am not a scientist. I don't have to be one to do simple multiplication. My wife is hotter than your wife.

My $100 says not a single criminal charge ever comes out of any of these agencies regarding anything to do with the Clintons. Not ever. So if you are so correct, cough up your hundred dollar handshake and we will see A low bar my friend. Nixon was never charged with a crime. Only because he received a pre-emptive pardon. You don't need a pardon if you've not committed a crime. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696 Nor does a person get executed who hasn't committed a crime, right? Beware speaking in absolutes. Always. Bogus comparison. Explain why a pardon is NEEDED if you've not done anything that needs pardoning. Explain this. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OK2AQ20150604 My wife is hotter than your wife.

My $100 says not a single criminal charge ever comes out of any of these agencies regarding anything to do with the Clintons. Not ever. So if you are so correct, cough up your hundred dollar handshake and we will see A low bar my friend. Nixon was never charged with a crime. Only because he received a pre-emptive pardon. You don't need a pardon if you've not committed a crime. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696 Nor does a person get executed who hasn't committed a crime, right? Beware speaking in absolutes. Always. My wife is hotter than your wife.

aa Who was talking about "just" killing people though? That doesn't apply at all to this case. This was by no means simply a killing. This was not simply a crime of passion or heat of the moment. This was clearly premeditated with a manifesto and documentation. The guy was fucking nuts. Ah. So he was nuts because he premeditated it and told the world why he did it. Okay. I'm sure that he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, what sane person ever premeditates a murder? I never remotely suggested he should be excused via a sanity defense. Your words and supposition, not mine. I said, the guy was, "fucking nuts." I stand by that. And I say he was a fucking asshole. We can agree to disagree. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Who was talking about "just" killing people though? That doesn't apply at all to this case. This was by no means simply a killing. This was not simply a crime of passion or heat of the moment. This was clearly premeditated with a manifesto and documentation. The guy was fucking nuts. Ah. So he was nuts because he premeditated it and told the world why he did it. Okay. I'm sure that he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, what sane person ever premeditates a murder? My wife is hotter than your wife.

He passed a background check. Apparently never got arrested. Never had a diagnosis of anything. Government sanctioned his purchase of a firearm. Looks like the only time he had any trouble with government sanctioning was when he shot some people. I've written all along that he knew how to toe the line. He was a royal asshole. You call it mentally ill. We all know that if a person throws cat shit at a house that he's going to blow people away. But you are right. I think any application for a background check should include the question, "have you ever been accused throwing cat feces at a house?" Should the answer be yes then, by all means, this person is insane and a threat to blow people away. My wife is hotter than your wife.

No. I don't find it "Normal." remwmber when. I said between 2 and 5 percent? No, throwing cat shit at neighbors' homes isn't normal. But having dogs shit on my lawn is. Having cats shit in my of kids' sandbox seems to be. Why must it be extreme? I said this guy was an asshole. Apparently you disagree thay throwing cat shit is an asshole thing to do. It's not normal behavior to park a car in front of a driveway, either. But when someone does thay is thay person mentally ill? Or just a selfish ass? But here is a question: is there any abnormal human behavior that you consider to not be a sign of mental illness? Like, I don't know, hurling yourself at a planet from a couple of miles up? My wife is hotter than your wife.

It is a war crime. Now. Back in the day, civilians were considered legitimate war targets. That changed a lot in 1949. Now, only civilians building or maintaining military equipment or even doing research (yes, universities can be legitimate military targets for this reason) are considered as such. Interstate highways were designed for mobilization so missiles or bombs taking out bridges are targets. Too bad for any civilian on the route. I grew up by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. That place is a legitimate military target. If that place ever went up, yes, there would be significant collateral damage. Like putting PEPCON to shame right next to the 405. So one has to look at civilian casualties with a sense of cynicism My wife is hotter than your wife.

So a dingy dirty flat, like that which is typified by the stereotypical housing project, is an indication of someone not mentally healthy? The guy is living in a slum type apartment. I reckon every unkempt place must mean a person is crazy. And the presence of gay porn is also indicative? Did Rick Santorum take over your dz.com account? Ah. So hey we're bothered that the asshole was still around. Okay. Hmmm. A guy is rude and arrogant. Must be nuts. It can't just be a personality thing. Is there just no such thing as a cold blooded killer anymore? Is there no such thing as just a bad seed? My wife is hotter than your wife.

Exactly, no need for any healthcare, not like you can force people to use it. So what's the point? I understand that it comes off as coarse. Mental health care is available. But the problem is right there. Convincing a crazy person that he is crazy and should seek help shows the problem right in the task. The U.S. used to treat people whether they wanted treatment or not. And even whether they needed it or not. Person has a behavioral issue then give that person a lobotomy. The U.S. would also simply warehouse people with alleged mental health issues. Put them in some hospital and keep them there in perpetuity. The Supreme Court back in 1975 held that people cannot simply be detained and forced into treatment on the mere basis of a mental illness. O'Connor was unanimous. Think of it this way. If you've ever known anyone who was in need of some help and tried to get the person to get treatment then you understand the difficulty. Interventions are actually a perfect example of the limits. Hey, this person is out of control. This person has an illness and refuses to get this illness treated. Can one just call the police and bring a person in to detox? Can you force an adult to get cancer treatment? Can you force an adult to go to rehab? Can you force an adult to lose weight and exercise? Can you force an adult into treatment for depression? This is the issue. Yes, I would like to see more mental health treatment on the front end. But in the U.S. We cannot force it unless that person presents an immediate threat to self or others. And then the person can only be treated until the crisis ends. Which is why I believe that it is more important than anything to stop the stigma. For an example of how politics runs this, last year the Washington Supreme Court found that warehousing people with mental illnesses in the ER was not cool. Turns out that Washington was cutting healthcare spending and made a massive cut to mental health. So psychiatric beds weren't available. And so mental health patients were just kept in the ER, given low priority on triage and just waited. And waited. And waited. Why does mental health get the first slash? Because the mentally ill are not viewed too highly. My wife is hotter than your wife.

That's where the Constitution comes in. All this talk about making mental health services available. You can't make people use them. And considering the massive disincentives, ie, a person is stupid enough to seek mental health care that person loses rights to guns, etc, then we have a perfect storm. Policy is to have undiagnosed people out there. Rather than have people go on and get diagnosed and treated. Policy is to destroy anyone who does. Plenty of people posting here are are good idea of why this policy is in effect. My wife is hotter than your wife.

The legal parsing? The law is based on a 19th century understanding of the mental health. It hasn't gone any further since then. The law is the problem. The law is based on stigma. The law is based on the idiocy of politics more than it is based on the reality of the medicine behind it. Imagine basing rules based on physics that were conceived fifty years before Einstein came up with relativity. That's where law is. Why? Because the public understanding of this stuff is right where you are. Where kallend is. We get nowhere with willful ignorance of the People. Indeed, it is entirely counterproductive. I'll put it this way: kallend is proposing the same shit that hasn't worked because it isn't based on any realistic idea of the medicine behind it. Perhaps it's time to change our concept of what "ill" is. It'l like a person blaming an abundance of trees for global warming. The more you cut them down the the worse the problem gets. And proposing cutting down more trees because we just haven't tried hard enough. My wife is hotter than your wife.

As an aside I'll note that the evidence is hat he purchased the gun legally. Why was it legal? Because he knew how to straddle the line. Was he arrested? Did he have any violence in his prior life? No. It didn't suit his purposes. HE knew when to make people afraid. And he knew when to back off. He toed the line and didn't cross it. He knew the line. He placed himself right up against it. Did he ever seek mental health help? No! That would not help him. In fact, it would make things harder for him. Were people afraid of him? Yes. Enough for them to seek a useless protective order? Nope. He knew not to push it that far. That would count against him. Scare them JUST ENOUGH. That means his record is clean. Background is clean. Yay. But then he can bide his time. Wait a week? A year? Nope. Wait and plan for the opportunity. Looking for a reason. Then get the gun. Go for what he wants. Plan it out. Make a spectacle. And brag about it. The sociopath is the danger. The psychopath is the danger. And they are the ones who know how to slip through the cracks. The sociopath is the one I fear. Not the nutter. The sociopath. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I can think of half a dozen politicians and media icons who behave that way. Are they all mentally ill? I am convinced that there are people who simply cannot believe that people can think this way. A person kills someone that person must be a nutter. Subtlety and nuance are lost. I understand how he can't bring himself to grasp it. It's not a defect on his part. It's actually more humanizing for him. I wish I was so blessedly ignorant... My wife is hotter than your wife.

Interesting. Do you suggest that evil in the name of Madoff was mental illness? Or what about Ken Lay? Was he just in need of a little medication? Apparently this poor fella who capped those reporters wasn't malevolent at all. He just needed some hug therapy? I'd suggest you take a look at what the professionals see. Ted Bundy just needed a support group? 2-5 percent of the population is sociopathic. They lack empathy or compassion for anybody. Give that person therapy? They use it to learn more about how to be better manipulator. You don't look at assholes who steal people's livelihoods and fortunes as being mentally ill. I don't think I've ever seen you mention anything about getting them treatment, screening before they are allowed to sit on Boards of Directors, etc. But they are the same species with different wants. They are users. They are about themselves with no concept of empathy for the pin of others. Whether they are murderers or white collar hucksters they are the same personality type. You don't know the difference because it's not your area of expertise. I get it. But having a wife whom I adore being around people in a hospital who should be in prison? People who are being called mentally ill because lawyer douchebags who decided that rather than giving evil rapists and child molesters lengthy prison sentences, they should put them in a hospital ONCE THEY HAVE SERVED IN PRISON in order to be treated for some disease? Yeah. I become intensely worried. And am fortunate enough to develop a better understanding of how popular stigmas and ideas of "mental illness" are as bullshit as popular understand of anything. You're falling victim to it, as well. Understandable. Trust me. I used to think like you. I see your point of view. But when you start giving white collar criminals the same deference you give shooters, then I'll start listening. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I apologize for my tone. You didn't have that coming. My wife is hotter than your wife.

So every mob assassin is mentally ill? I'd go so far as to say that Kuklinski was far from mentally ill. But rather a sane individual who was just plain evil. No problem is ever solved by misdiagnosis. Of for some convenient application of blame. Terrorists flew into the twin towers so let's go after Saddam Hussein. And yet there is surprise that there is still terrorism. Pointing the finger at mental illness means that you end up missing other stuff going on. His manifesto may shed some light on specifically what was going on. But nobody thought Dorner was mentally ill. He was evil. Because he was educated and articulate and his statements actually resonated as a person that just snapped. Pointing fingers right now ain't gonna work. Start off with blaming an evil act on evil. Otherwise we face the effects of errors in attribution. Which is a continuation of what we are seeing. My wife is hotter than your wife.