from the source @ youtube:

The animated film, “#Justino,” features a security guard at a mannequin factory. Since Justino works the graveyard shift, he has very few chances to interact with his coworkers. With a little bit of creativity, Justino devises ways to connect with his colleagues by using the factory’s mannequins to create situations both amusing and moving. His coworkers appreciate his playfulness each morning, and find a way to repay his generous spirit in kind.

One new feature this year is social media activation. The factory, “Fábrica de Maniquíes El Pilar,” has its own Facebook profile reporting on its day-to-day activities. And we can follow Justino’s nights in real time via his Instagram account @justino_vigilante.

On Nov. 16, #Justino, from the animated short, became the No. 1 trending topic in Spain and No. 5 in the world on Twitter. The film exceeded 1 million views on YouTube within a day.

A national tradition since 1812, Spaniards look forward to the annual Christmas lottery even if it means standing in line for hours to purchase the tickets. Nicknamed El Gordo, which means “the fat one,” prizes are valued up to more than €2.2 billion, making it the biggest lottery prize in the world.

It’s common to “share” the lottery by buying “participaciones,” or “shared tickets” at offices, with friends and family, and at bars. The belief is that the Christmas lottery is unique because it’s one that Spaniards participate in together, and if they win, they win together.

Howdy Pardon for interrupting. Yes, Puddles is here in Adelaide for our annual Fringe Festival -> link. And that pie & sauce Youtube video had to have been filmed here in Adelaide as well, as the ketchup was a homebrand from Foodland, which is a local independent South Australian supermarket

There are BLM activists who make inflammatory comments about white people (oh no whatever shall we do) and there are feminists who make inflammatory comments about men (oh no whatever shall we do). I posit, for your reasoned consideration:

That conveniently leaves out the fact that income tax rates have plummeted since the 1940s. That's been the big consistent change, not the government increasing spending as a percentage of GDP, which wildly fluctuates.

The reason why there's a fight to get this funded is because there's a portion of this country that thinks you must pay for every new expenditure by cutting spending elsewhere because the national debt will kill us if it doesn't come down, and taxes can never ever ever ever ever be raised ever ever ever ever. They will absolutely never consider that raising taxes is worth funding anything, and are completely okay with cutting funding for things that are even needed and are worth the money (see cutting funding for PBS).

I say "principled" because they sure don't ask for reduced spending to pay for when they need help. See Katrina and other disasters, Mitch McConnell's fund to help nuclear power workers, etc.

But the fundamental problem here is the flat refusal to accept the reality that:
1. The national debt and annual deficits can, will, and should fluctuate depending upon circumstances. The "sky is falling" reaction to added debt is beyond ridiculous. This country has flourished economically under almost non-stop deficit spending. This isn't to say raising the national debt and running annual deficits is always good, but it sure as hell isn't always bad.
2. The same reaction to tax raises is also ridiculous. Tax rates can be increased or decreased, depending on circumstances, and raising or lowering them isn't inherently good or bad.

A sane reaction to this whole thing isn't - "well, they spend money on things that don't matter, so that's why this can't be funded."

It's "I don't care if it costs every single one of us an extra dollar in taxes in a year, or we need to cut funding on (insert wasteful program here), we need to get this done."

It's a discussion we've been having in this country for as long as I can remember and was one of the prime arguments made for a vast set of reforms a decade ago. And I still don't buy it.

At the very basic level, the argument is that a declining percentage of working age people have to pay for an increasing number of pensions. But that's only half the story. The working age population has to generate enough output to sustain not just themselves and retirees, but also children, the unemployed, the sick, anyone not working. A shrinking population means less children, and most importantly less unemployed. Increases in productivity are more than enough to compensate for that, no need to increase birth rates or immigration.

Germany is regularly paraded around as a country in dire need of immigration, given our low birth rate. Even if we ignore for a minute that any 50 year population forecast of the past has been invalidated after maybe 5 years, the "worst" they could conjure up was a decline in working age population of 34% by the year 2060. So what? That's 0.8% a year. And since it's based on a population decline of 20% over the same time, it's an annual drop of 0.2%. That's their worst case scenario, and it's statistical noise.

We've had a massive increase in average age over the last century as well as two world wars and our system managed just fine. And an annual drop of 0.2% is supposed to bring it to its knees? Pah.

Now, I'm all in favour of immigration, primarily to spice things up and prevent our society from becoming too homogeneous. But our pension system needs neither mass immigration nor an increased birth rate. What it needs is for politicians to stop funneling funds from our "PAYGO" system towards their buddies in the private sector. Current income = current payments, public system. Everything else is too volatile and susceptible to the Vampire Squids on Wall Street.

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

Interestingly with my global journal access through academia, not anywhere is the article I linked shown as peer reviewed media accessible through the common university publications...must just be a nature journal thing to want to rort people for money no matter what their affiliation.

At first glance, I read this article to mean that the area is a sink in so far as it contains a large quantity of methane, and its 'consumption' or 'uptake' rates are shown in negative values...indicating a release of the gas.

In checking peer reviewed articles through my academic channels, I come across many that are saying pretty much the same deal, heres a tl;dr from just one of them;

"Permafrost covers 20% of the earth's land surface.
One third to one half of permafrost, a rich source of methane, is now within 1.0° C to 1.5° C of thawing.
At predicted rates of thaw, by 2100 permafrost will boost methane released into the atmosphere 20% to 40% beyond what would be produced by all other natural and man-made sources.
Methane in the atmosphere has 25 times the heating power of carbon dioxide.
As a result, the earth's mean annual temperature could rise by an additional 0.32° C, further upsetting weather patterns and sea level."

Source: Methane: A MENACE SURFACES. By: Anthony, Katey Walter, Scientific American, 00368733, Dec2009, Vol. 301, Issue 6

@charliem,

Energy is absolutely a better measure and marker of climate change than temperature. I started there since the video did. In reality though, everything in climate change is solely about the energy balance at the Top Of Atmosphere. More TOA energy in and temps go up in the long term, less and temps go down. It's the very foundation of climate change.

The climate models that your links look to for projections of things like methane thresholds are based on modelled temperature predictions. The IPCC notes the following on the state of the art in climate models:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The Models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
It's in Box 9.1

So, climate models currently FAIL to predict TOA energy accurately and hand tuning is required for modelling temperatures into the known past in order to avoid unrealistic states because the TOA energy is wrong. Maybe we aught not panic just yet on extrapolations from that base. I'm not calling climate models garbage, rather they are a learning tool for climate processes and one lesson is that we have a long ways to go in understanding the central component of TOA energy balance. If you go to google scholar and lookup the references from the IPCC assertions you'll find that the modellers acknowledge that most models still either leak or create energy from nothing. As in, even conservation of energy is imperfect in them still.

Your cursory glance approach is a problem, the devil is in the details.

Looking at energy further from NASA's numbers also tells us that the net contribution to TOA energy trapping from the CO2 we've added in the last 100 years is about 3W/m-2 globally. The global TOA energy imbalance is about 0.5W/M-2. In other words, if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, we'd suddenly have a global energy imbalance at TOA of -2.5W/M-2. That brings two things to mind.
1.The enormous energy imbalance you want to call a catastrophe is 0.5W/M-2, but merely rolling back to 1900 CO2 concentrations today would yield a negative energy imbalance 5 times as large.
2.Of the 3W/M-2 that our actions have pushed on the planet, natural factors(warming and other unknowns) have already balance out 2.5W/M-2 of the imbalance, today.

You also might wanna check how much energy is in the oceans on the whole. If you take the increase in energy as a percentage of OCH instead of straight joules you'll find the trend is << than 1% annually.

It's a bit hard to come up with personal anecdotes to support or deny the claim, since our culture discourages sharing information about how much we get paid. I know the salaries of -very- few folks I've worked with.

That said, there are a few. My former manager had worked for the company for a number of years before I started there. She was the tech lead for our development team. About a year and a half after I started, she was promoted to manager over the team, and I got promoted to tech lead. In spite of the fact that she had worked there several times as long as I had, and was without question every bit as technically talented as I am, the difference in our salaries was nada. The only difference in our annual income was that she got a 15% bonus, where I got a 10% bonus.

It's certainly possible that there are other explanations for the discrepancy...working at the same company for long periods, while making you -far- more valuable to the company, leads to a -far- lower rate of pay compared to someone who moves around every 2-3 years. That could be involved (although it's -just- as nonsensical). But given the culture at this company, I would have no trouble believing that the core issue was her gender.

From my investigation, that's incorrect.
The places in China where hand pollination is used still have bees. The reason they do hand pollination is they switched to a very few varieties of apples and pears...and apple and pear trees need a DIFFERENT apple or pear tree to pollinate, so if you only have one apple variety (the norm there) it won't self pollinate, no matter how many bees there are. Also, climate change is putting the bee cycles and the tree cycles out of synch, making natural pollination even more difficult or impossible. By hand pollinating, they are able to have less than 10% 'pollination' trees to 90% 'fruiting' trees, and pollinate on the tree's cycle. THAT'S why production was better with hand pollination, not because people could do it better, but humans could target which pollen to use on which flower/tree. Also, commercial beekeepers won't 'lend' (rent) their hives out, or require high payments for them pricing most farmers out, because farmers there still use pesticides that kill bees through the pollination seasons.

Other areas that used to do hand pollination have stopped thanks to education. Now they plant more variety (so the bees/insects/birds CAN pollinate for them) and use less pesticides (that they actually didn't realize would kill bees) and are getting better yields for less money than the Chinese.

EDIT: These 'studies' always seem to ignore the incalculable cost of removing all the natural food pollinated by bees, and the collapse of many food webs caused by the loss of that food base. If people are spending cash to do the pollination work, you can be certain they'll go to great lengths to NOT share that produce with any wildlife.

Also, human hand pollination doesn't work for crops like certain grains and smaller vegetables and nuts, main human food sources. It only works for foods where a single pollinated flower will produce something worth the cost of pollination...grains simply don't, and neither do most vegetables, fruits, or nuts. Only large fruits or vegetables could use this economically. So while you're correct, it CAN be done, doing it across the board would probably quadruple the cost of average foods, if not worse.

WIKI-" If humans were to replace bees as pollinators in the United States, the annual cost would be estimated to be $90,000,000,000.[4]"

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/will-we-still-have-fruit-if-bees-die-off/

Stupid?....well, that's the pot calling the clear glass pitcher black.
Far better leader?!? If only I thought you might be joking, but I know you aren't.
Show me something Obama suggested that's worse than a single one of these Bush/republican plans
Free Bailouts-a Bush/republican idea, repeatedly, getting nothing for it.
9/11- warned about but completely ignored by Bush.
Katrina-do I need to say a word?
The second great depression- (according to republicans)-caused by republicans removing the safeguards put on the stock market and banks, allowing them to play fast and loose, totally screwing our economy.
Iraq-again, do I need to say a word?
Putting the Iraq war 'off the books' to try to blame Obama for the cost that was ignored during Bush-uh...yeah, keep trying that.
Cutting taxes while raising spending outrageously-that was Bush
Raising the national debt more than any president before him-I know fox told you that was Obama, but it was really Bush. Even the first years when federal income was severely depressed (thanks to the economy Bush left us with) he didn't spend like Bush, if you look at the REAL numbers, not the white washed, no war, no homeland security, no bailout numbers the republicans pretend are real.

Because the republicans decided that their plan was to obstruct ANY idea from Obama (clearly stated BEFORE he took office, and followed through), it didn't matter a whit how he led, they refused to follow. It's not about his leadership, it's about the republican leadership thinking that beating Obama is more important than governing. Refusing a 10-1 deal where for every $1 in raised taxes they get $10 in spending cuts....and they said NO! Get real for once, it's not Obama's leadership or lack thereof that's screwing us, it's partisan politics being more important than the nation...and we all know which side plays that game more often and harder. (EDIT: I do admit that both 'sides' play that game, however.)
10 votes total? What the F*&K are you talking about. You mean 10 REPUBLICAN votes in the house? You are simply wrong he only got 10 votes total.
"The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974. However this spring noted that the GOP-led Congress didn’t pass a final resolution in 1998, 2004 and 2006."
..."And the politics of the moment are a far cry from last year, when the House and Senate easily passed Obama’s first budget on the president’s 100th day in office. The budget measure last year did not attract any GOP support."
Well...enough said. I know you won't really take any of this to heart, you drank the fox news koolaid long ago and facts no longer matter.

@RedSky

The need to be kept afloat by European funds is pretty high on the list of things Syriza is keen to do away with. Varoufakis was clear on this pretty early on, at least 2009 as far as I know. They treated it as a problem of liquidity instead of a problem of insolvency, and therefore any funds funnelled into Greece were basically disappearing down a black hole. They are bleeding cash left, right and center, and the continuous flow of credit from Europe doesn't help a bit in its current form.

As of now, they can't pay shit. Any additional credit has to be used to pay back interest on previous credit. Their meagre primary surplus is less than their interest payments. With that in mind, some of the ideas floating around sound rather intriguing, especially given the horrendous failure all the previous agreements have produced. These ideas include: cap interest payment (1.5% of primary surplus), use the rest for investment or humanitarian relief; no payments on debt below 3% growth, 50% of agreed upon payments at 3-6% growth, full payments at 6+% growth.

Yet even those ideas are purely theoretical, because there is no growth in Greece. The celebrated growth in Q3 2014 of 0.7% might very well be a fluke, as Bill Mitchell described here (prices falling faster than incomes). For Greece to be able to have any meaningful growth, they'd require not just a complete reconstruction of its institutions (structural reforms), but also massive investment.

And there's where it breaks down again, since you rightfully pointed out that the Germans in particular won't spend a dime on Greece, especially not with investment in Germany in equally dire shape (shortfall of about a trillion € since 2000).


Which brings me to another point: Germany vs France.

Productivity in both countries was en par in 1999, and productivity in France in 2014 was only slightly below German numbers. "Living within your means" is a very popular phrase in the current discussion, which basically means living in accordance with your productivity.

Subsequently, there should be a similar development of unit labour costs within a monetary union, with growth targets set by the central bank. In our case, that would be just below 2%. Like I've previously said, Greece lived beyond its means in this regard, and significantly so.

But what about France and Germany? The black line marks the target, blue is France, red is Germany. That's beggar-thy-neighbour. That's gaining competetiveness at the cost of your fellow Euro pals. That's suppressing domestic demand in order to push exports.

German reforms killed its domestic market (retail sales stagnant since early '90s) and created an aggregate trade surplus to the tune of 2 trillion Euros. That's 2 trillion Euros of deficit in other countries. And we're looking at an additional 200-210 billion Euros this year. If running trade deficits is bad, so is running trade surpluses.

Ironically, there's even been legislation in Germany since 1967, instructing the government to balance its books in matters of trade (and other areas). They've been in violation of it for 15 years.

With this in mind, everytime a German politician calls for the other countries to run trade surpluses just like Germany, I get furious. Some of them, on the European level, even have the audacity to say that everyone should run trade surpluses, and all it takes to get there is massive wage cuts. That's open lunacy and a failure of basic math. No surplus without deficits, no savings without debt.

And while we're at it, it's not the savings rate in Germany that bothers me. It's the moral superiority that is being ascribed to running surpluses in every way imaginable. Every part of society is expected to have a positive savings rate, because debt is bad. Well, if everyone's saving and nobody's accruing the corresponding debt, you get the current situation where there is no investment whatsoever, a gargantuan shortfall in demand given the national productivity, and a cool 200 billion Euros of debt a year that foreign actors have to rake up so that Germany can have its massive growth of 0.5-1.5% annually.

Finding borrowers for all that cash is getting more difficult by the day. The ECB's QE is basically one big search for new borrowers, since everyone either doesn't want to borrow or cannot borrow anymore.

If Germany wanted to help the Eurozone, they'd start by increasing their ULC vis-á-vis the rest of the countries. Competitiveness should be regulated through the foreign exchange rate, not this parasitic race to the bottom within the zone. Ten years of 4% increase in wages, annually. That ought to be a start.

Additionally, allow the ECB to fund the European Investment Bank directly, instead of this black hole of QE.

Or go one step further and seriously consider Varoufakis' ideas, including the old Keynesian concept of a global surplus recycling mechanism.

But all that is pure fantasy. I don't think a majority of Germans would support either of these measures, not with the overwhelming fear of inflation this society has. Add the continuous demonisation of debt and you get a guarantee that very few countries might be compatible to be in a longtime monetary union with Germany.

Expecting perfect prediction from an observational science of a chaotic system is hardly reasonable. Back in the 1890s it was predicted warming would follow the emissions. Limited in the kind of experiments they can do - climate scientists are bound to err.

It's not 'alarmists' saying the heat is being trapped in the deep oceans. At least not exclusively. It is an observed fact that there is more heat energy entering our system than is leaving it. This leaves some possibilities:

1) Our observations of heat flow are incorrect to a significant degree.
2) The laws of thermodynamics are nonsense
3) The heat is trapped somewhere on earth.

Without reason to suppose 1) and being able to reject 2) out of hand, we're left with 3). And from there, where is it? The classic answers would be

a) atmosphere
b) biosphere
c) cryosphere
d) hydrosphere
e) lithosphere

Some scientists proposed d) as an answer. This is at least partially true, the fist km or so of ocean is warming. It was hard to get measurements of the global deep ocean temperatures, it was hypothesized that some heat was down there.

Maybe they're wrong, and maybe the heat is somewhere else. This is the joy of science: the capacity to falsify ideas, even popular ones. But the heat is very likely here, and until we find it, it might be said to be 'hiding'. It may be that there is more heat going somewhere we thought we'd accounted for already such as 'the cryosphere'.

It's not happening at the litho-atmosphere boundary so much right now (the 'hiatus'), but that leaves plenty of stones to explore. It's still happening, and we're breaking post industrial temperature records almost annually (2014 looks like it'll be the new hottest year).