Reusable hand warmers that get hot by freezing has been added as a related post - related requested by w1ndex on that post.

What a great bike.
Can't wait for warmer weather to get out and ride.

Fucking witchcraft! It's witchcraft, I tell ya! Listen you, we ain't havin' any of that hocusy-pocusy bullshit here -- this is a decent Christian site as is evidenced by the number of atheist posters. You can't just fly in here on your broom and be all like, "Gentlemen, BEHOLD! It's a seal in a ring -- IN FUCKING JAPAN!" and expect us to believe that reason or knowledge was somehow involved. We're fucking Americans here and if there's ONE thing we know, it's not reason or knowledge. Yup, if blaming witches for pretty much every goddamn thing but the sun coming up was good enough for every Republican president since Rutherford Birchard Hayes, I suspect it beats thinking for yourself in a cogent fashion or otherwise using your brain as anything but a hat-warmer.

SF has this problem so bad because it's such a successful city. Cost of living is at least double the national average, you're lucky to find a small one bedroom for $3500 a month there.
Because the weather is mild year round, transients never move on to warmer climates, but more show up in spring.
Housing problems there are largely caused by rising housing costs, unaffordable to some working 3 jobs. Many are lured in because you get more panhandling money when the average income is >$100000. I recall a few being investigated in the 90's who seemed to make well over $100000 a year by begging, one was estimated at $250000+. Thousands are working homeless, living in their cars because they don't earn enough to even share an apartment. Most make more than the national average. Keep in mind, $190000 is middle class in San Francisco.

This has been an issue in San Francisco and the bay in general at least since the early 80's when i lived there....but it has gotten worse as the population and rent increased but low income housing didn't.
Now Trump has said there will be no low income housing (which he thinks means all blacks) in suburbs, directing infinitely more homeless and low income citizens to cities in search of a possible roof over their heads...and in the same breath he blames Democrats for the homeless problems in cities.

As mentioned above, there is no republican plan to deal with homeless. None. They seem to think if you deny them services and food they evaporate. It doesn't work that way.

Pelosi doesn't control San Francisco, she represents it in the house. Derp.

What a dishonest tool. 1/2 the nation's homeless?! Bullshit. San Francisco has around 10000, America has around 500000. It's just more bullshit and *lies @bobknight33, not philosophy, news, or talks, and the only thing to learn from it is massive levels of misinformation.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

The warm water "blob" that started this collapse in 2014 is back this year, bigger and warmer than 2014-15. Don't expect any improvement.
I hope you like soylent green, soylent blue is being discontinued.

When science becomes political it becomes corrupted and hence discredited.

Global warmer/gender/ abortion are the best examples.

I'd think it would have mostly to do with the water being clean to begin with, and flooding extremely slowly.

Probably a Hell of a lot warmer than this place:
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Beautiful-Park-Spends-Half-The-Year-Completely-Underwater

if it's such a bulky machine, why not make it regular bike sitting position with an encloded cockpit? Better visibility and warmer in cold Swedish winters.

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

That's an interesting question, but I figure the water pressure in the box can't be different than the pressure difference you'd get from the equivalent change of depth, which can't be very much. Surely their bladders allow them to swim up or down a few feet. I doubt they're stuck in any way. Maybe they congregate there because the water in the box is warmer or because there is more light. Maybe they just find it interesting. I guess I shouldn't feel bad about fish in an aquarium since they seem to enjoy the experience.

The simplest counter argument to your catastrophic prediction is the stability of the paleo-temperature record. If there has been a methane 'time-bomb' just sitting there waiting to be set off anytime the temperature got an extra degree warmer then temperatures wouldn't be stable as they have been over the last millenia. The gradual shifts from ice-age to global rain forests wouldn't have been gradual at all, and likely wouldn't have been reversible either.

The more likely answer is our understanding of climate functions and things like just how much methane is likely to escape in a certain time frame is incomplete.

There are hundreds/thousands of farms in my area. I don't think a single one is >1000 acres. Hundreds of families support themselves relatively well on the income they make from the smaller farms. True, you probably can't send 3 children to college on that money, but hardly anyone could these days...that's around $150k a year for 4+ years JUST for their base education. Be real, mom and pop store owners can't afford that either.

EDIT: Oh, I see, the AVERAGE is about 1000 acres....but that includes the 1000000 acre industrial farms. What is the average acreage for a "family farm" (by which I mean it's owned by the single family that lives and works on the land and supports itself on the product of that work)?

EDIT: Actually, there are thousands of 'family farms' in my area that produce more than enough product to send 3 kids to college on >5 acres with no industrialization at all (and many many more that do over use chemicals and have destroyed many of our watersheds with their toxic runoff)....I live in Humboldt county, it's easy to make a ton of money on a tiny 'farm' here...for now.

My idea of what's sustainable or good practice is based on long term personal (>33 years personally growing vegetables using both chemical and natural fertilizers) and multiple multi generational familial experiences (both mine and neighbors) AND all literature on the subject which is unequivocal that over use of chemical fertilizers damages the land and watersheds and requires more and more chemicals and excess water every year to mitigate that compounding soil damage, or leaving the field fallow long enough to wash it clean of excess salts (which then end up in the watershed).
Fertilizers carry salts. With excessive use, salts build up. Salt buildup harms crops and beneficial bacteria. Bacteria are necessary for healthy plant growth. If you and yours don't know that and act accordingly, it's astonishing your family can still farm the same land at all, you've been incredibly lucky. You either don't over use the normal salt laden chemical fertilizers on that land, or you're lying. There's simply no other option.

EDIT: It is possible that you are getting better yields for numerous reasons...."better" crop genes (both larger crops and more resistant to insects, drought, disease, etc.), better/more fertilizers, better/more pesticides, and seeing as you're in Canada, climate change. Warmer weather would absolutely give YOU better yields of almost any crop, that's not true farther South. Better yields does not mean you aren't destroying the land, BTW. It is possible to use chemicals and insane amounts of water to grow on land that's "dead", but it takes more and more chemicals and water to do, and those chemicals don't evaporate into nothing, they run off.
If you are getting better yields every year using the same methods and amounts of additives and growing the exact same crops, I'm incredibly interested in how you pull that off.