A referendum disowned by every international institution specialized in monitoring elections. But more importantly, one where only 43% if the census took part. So, a poll without guarantees taken among pro-independence Catalans is enough ground for declaring The Catalan Repulic. Very democratic.

This is a very interesting one: this guy's party has accepted to take part in the elections called by the central government. Also, Puigdemont has agreed to accept their results. Are these the "free elections" he's talking about? Are these people their leaders for the next two months then? I know, it sounds less epic put this way.

The "strike" so far has consisted in dismissing the Catalan government and taking over their self-ruling, and call for a snap election in Catalonia in two months to replace it. Behold the state machinery striking at millions of citizens!!

How exactly? They've been saying for seven years they would organize a referendum and declare independence eventually.

To my knowledge there were no far-right groups acting on the day of the "referendum". There's been a few incidents during demonstrations against independence, including the stoning of the entrance of the Catalan public TV. But it's not definitively as systematic (rather anecdotical, though a contrast with the image of non-violence pro-independence demonstrators have managed to project) and ominous as he paints it.

Because the Spanish government had been saying all THESE SEVEN YEARS that they couldn't vote. So, hey, let's go an vote on our own and against their wishes ONE MORE TIME (yes, they did vote in 2014, though they framed it as a "consultive poll", and the Spanish government let that one fly).

That was simply stupid and did reveal some unsettling tendencies running deep in the political culture of the PP, the party in power in Madrid. Let it be said though, that the police was acting under the orders of the Catalan Supreme Court in Barcelona.

This is kind of a non sequitur.

The Spanish government has always answered the same when presented with the same question: you can't organize a referendum on secession; think of something else.

The Constitutional Court, as you can see has been obsessed with suspending EVERY single thing the Catalan government did. Those cases he quotes are rather questionable, and usually what the court struck down was a different part of the legal initiative. In some cases, the core of the law was left untouched. But nationalism like BIG SIMPLE facts.

Yes, the Spanish government loves sabotaging a region producing 19% of the country's GDP. They can't get enough of it, how do you think Spain has managed to achieve such high unemployment rates? By sabotaging Catalonia, of course. It's a national sport.

The central government frame it as "facilitating" in response to a genuine concern over legal security. Big firms like knowing in what country they'll be the following month. SO far, 1,700 companies have left Catalonia since October 1st.

Actually, the problem is the rest of Spain has been enduring complete indifference to the Catalan government on the part of Madrid's government.

After 7 years of their own regional government hammering with this all day. No matter it was unconstitutional, nor that the Constitution can be changed. They had to do it their own way, forcing Madrid to do as they wanted.

Not really, they have one of the highest degrees of self-government in Europe (dare say, the world), and they are overrepresented in the national parliament, where Catalan parties been instrumental to the formation of national governments.

Such a priority, that after proclaiming the republic they all went away for the weekend.

This speaks to some of the social and political systems at play that were root causes for what occurred here.

Secrets never stay secret. The truth does come out, but it takes the work and perseverance of people like Catherine to bring these stories to light.

foreshadowing and irony.

Shame and guilt are ever present in the stories told throughout the piece.

Catherine's personal motivation.

Reference to demons. The children were vilified and dehumanized by society.

These stories are harrowing! Tatamount to prison labor and peonage. Click this link!

Catherine is driven by guilt. Parallel to the young mothers or different?

This image is repeated throughout the essay. It takes on a symbolic meaning.

The strong connection to death and the reverence for death, dying and the dead is another ironic turn in the piece. It further emphasizes the wrong that was done to the young children who died at the home and didn't receive a proper burial.

The religious connotation is strong here as well. "The fallen" correlates the women and children to sinners. They are identified as sinners. They are worthy of our scorn and their status as castoffs. The author uses this term to identify how they were treated by the nuns and society so that we can see the injustice in their treatment.

The beginning reminds me of a description of baby Jesus. Considering the role that the Catholic Church plays throughout the story and the victimization of the "home babies", this creates a strong sense of irony throughout the piece.

Is there any evidence on the numbers?

That is changing. Many institutions and funders just ask you the mention what you consider your best papers/output

It is helpful to think of the housing ads targeted on race, and the change brought about in this area by ProPublica. This was successful because of existing legislation (Fair Housing Act). Facebook can be forced to change its ways depending on the ultimate purpose of the ad.

It's interesting that the lawmaker on the panel keeps saying what facebook needs to do but doesn't propose anything like legislation. Regulations of platforms are pretty much nonexistent in the United States. We shouldn't have to ask for transparency; there should be regulations that mandate it.

no way. just stop using it NOW

Again, this is a bit problematic given the whole "use your real name" thing that happened a couple of years ago, when people were getting kicked off for using their chosen names (esp. queer people, in the examples I remember). Like Jeremy alludes below, it's a fine line because unequal power means that policies have different effects on different people...

I also wonder about the difference between "solutions" and "alternatives."

Yeah, ok! Take me to this planet! I love chatting with Kate over on Mastodon! Whatever wacky insanity Dr. Wu is peddling here (in the commons), I am buying (metaphorically and without ponying cash or data). I don't think FB will be the nonprofit public benefit platform we need. But maybe we can build it somewhere? Hoping the next backlash period in American political history will see a resurgence of public institutions with public infrastructure, including tech infrastructure. FB was built at Harvard. Let's build Wubook in the community colleges and town libraries and food co-ops. STOP LAUGHING BECAUSE I MEAN IT and we can.

I am so so so cynical because this seems ridiculous. I can only imagine that they would only come clean in targeted ways that shore up their longterm profit goals. They would take a small hit if it would benefit the company in the long run in terms of revenues and longevity. I just don't see how we can rely on this kind of airing of dirty laundry when we know it always needs to serve its own profit margins. That being said, I understand that the company's longterm sustainability could be improved if they admit to and fix their problems. But I just can't feel hopeful that this really makes the platform better for users: wouldn't it just make FB a better user of users?

+1

I kind of think the days where we could separate out which products are political and which aren't may be just about over.

Someone call Twitter and remind them, too.

REMEMBER THE OLD DAYS? THERE WAS NO CRIME AND TAFFY WAS A NICKEL AND EVERY LADY HAD A PINAFORE?

This seems like a totally ridiculous idea, but this last line is awesome, and I would be interested in a tool that did this. I just wonder how you do this algorithmically. Like, do you let users totally define and build value according to their own personal standards? That's interesting. But this is so damn weird. Why would I want FB to get all up in my values this way? Maybe for the same reason I now count on them to archive the f*$%kin diary of my life. Doh.

I wonder if you can have "more" or "less" transparency. If transparency is controlled, won't it always be not transparent? Maybe clearer, but not transparent? If FB holds all the power to decide how to be more transparent, I just can't believe we could every really get transparency. Though maybe we could get something "good enough." After all, we have like NO transparency now and so many of us are still willing to be there. But I tend to think we may need al alternative to FB rather than a solution for FB.

I don't know what is weird to me about this, but somehow blaming users' emotional reactions seems...off...I dunno. I will sleep on it. Can't say what is bothering me about this.

Should this be done internally to corps or should gov have a hand in the regulation?

Customization again.

Or just customization in general.

Feel me.

Great example of the tension between social media as liberating/oppressing. Like Twitter can be used by Black Lives and white supremacists. When, in this case, does anonymity become abused versus liberating?

Love this idea.

Or at least keep us "in the stream."

Very interesting. Need to check this study out.

Useful phrase.

Great, but how would you measure that?

Corporate structure at odds with idealist slogans. This is essentially why I left (Rap) Genius: it became increasingly apparent that despite the company's well-intentioned, truly felt aspirations, there were only so many avenues to monetization and all would in some way compromise the stated mission.

Transparency.

That sounds like they are trying to cover something up.

Should the narrative of science have a say in the outcome of science: the collective body of knowledge that is acknowledged as reliable?

Gelman’s response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-replication-failures-better-understanding-data-collection-analysis-better-science/

How do we do replication studies without the unpleasant shaming that people tend to do if a finding that doesn’t replicate?

Are talks/seminars based on (unreplicated) findings fair game for mentioning?

What were the old norms of public critique?

Exceptionally high for a psychology study? Or exceptionally high for a replication study? Or exceptionally high for a psychology study that failed to replicate?

Iran seeks to defend its national interest to increase military power despite of the Nuclear Deal

What is this ?

Why we need immigrants to work in farm work

why is he doing this now?

releasing them is not going to stop conspiracy theories

Trump wants the people of the United States to be fully aware of the JFK assassination. No more conspiracies, he just wants the word out there.

Hyperbole.

Or you could argue that anyone who did not see this coming had their heads in the sand. Perhaps the problem is more about business model - if investors and public markets drive Facebook to make ad revenue, then it's going to do that as best it can. Would we rather have a national money-making machine, or a platform for social connectedness for a fee?

https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20170928_090000_First_Look/start/639.5/end/658.7?q=trump

Hi there

This is something I want to say.

https://archive.org/details/CSPAN_20171019_210400_White_House_Briefing_with_John_Kelly/start/750/end/866.5

Click here.

https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20170713_170000_MSNBC_Live_With_Craig_Melvin/start/3412.2/end/3422.2?q=trump

https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20170711_100000_Morning_Joe/start/1894.6/end/1908?q=trump

future is always bright the development of ai will be continuously working out

everyone can study ai as long as having the knowledge above high school

small companies also try to step into the ai realm they cant compete with big companies but they have their own way of recruiting

self driving is a kind of ai usage

big companies started the researches of ai since 2013

the beginning of the intro of ai how it works when given orders

statistics of the cost on ai lab

the competition between ai majored people is intense

emphasize that the salary is increasing rapidly

income of jobs related to ai tech is relatively high

ai has a bright future since not a lot of people know about ai

ai is a global interest

Definition: Excessive pride or self-confidence

Hopefully these new limits will prevent anything bad from happening again on this campus. Also, I hope other colleges learn from this one's mistake.

This is incredibly inappropriate. Somebody should have done more than just told him to "cut it out"

This is terrible

This is terrible, but this is not the first time to happen. how many more times does this have to happen? Till it stops

Stunning Omission

See here:

https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find

One recent example of the "direct connection" requirement, preceded by countless others over the years.

This is a test

Super cool!

The main case that happened recently and has been discussed around the world.

So, why is this self-discipline apparently less common in Chinese science? Is it solely due to the reduced risks and increased rewards of fraud, as the article implies?

mm.

Again, this goes back to the same issue of protecting algorithms for business purposes, but that also has implications for legal settings. In the near future, I predict that there will be a better, more legitimate way to validate wha these algorithms look at from a third party point of view.

This is a fascinating way to create a potential list for high-risk individuals. Like I mentioned in a previous article annotation, I think it has potential to warn us of people who could be trouble, but to target someone or accuse them without evidence is unfair and unjust.

The fact that these algorithms are secret make this particular example a little bit sketchy. I do think there's a place for this kind of technology in the judicial system, but when there's no way to check/challenge how this algorithm works, then I think it's fair for people to question its validity. I understand why they wouldn't be able to just expose the algorithm, but some way of making sure its legitimate would make sense.

Takes us back to court evidence standards - if defendant sites character evidence, will this sort of data be admitted?

Read 'the Psychopath Inside' by Fallon (2013). Not all criminal tendencies lead to crime. Many can be sculpted into high-functioning individuals.

https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Inside-Neuroscientists-Personal-Journey/dp/1591846005

Esta es una prueba

The word you're looking for is "rape."

jfc

This may be the cause that children are not getting the 9-10 hours of sleep that they need.

Schools need to start later so most teens can get better sleep.

Parents think waking children up early in the morning and making them go to school is okay, and good preparation for life. However the writer thinks that is wrong. It is going against our nature.

How does the economic case is going to help teenagers sleep later?

In this paragraph, an analogy is used to compared the trademark office to the T.S.A to show how the trademark office is ran.

OJ has to find a new place, because he's not welcome

now that he is out, it would be a good idea to keep a close eye out for this so he doesn't repeat mistakes

He ended up not having to serve the full 33 years he was sentenced to.

Oj Simpson is going to end up living in florida

This statement is very true and it is one hundred percent political based

OJ Simpson has been in prison for a long time.

People want health, not health care. And those who require the most health care and get the least health — high-need, high-cost patients with multiple or severe medical conditions — feel this most acutely.

The Times continues to wrestle with how to cover Trump spectacles... and still errs on the side of covering them as if Trump were a normal president, simply describing what he did, rather than putting it into its crucial context.

Additionally, the story stands as a great example of the Politico-ization of political news. It's all superfice. All optics. And it barely even alludes to the enormous human suffering and insufficient federal response that the Times has in fact covered elsewhere.

It compares poorly with, say, Daniel Dale's story in the Toronto Star. The headline there: In bizarre visit, Donald Trump compares Puerto Rico to ‘a real catastrophe like Katrina’ — and congratulates himself

This is such an understatement. It was ludicrous and bizarre: Trump acting like he is Santa Claus, with the assembled Puerto Ricans as props. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc2jyKaq_lg

This story was all about political optics, not the reality on the ground. So what little context there was, was about how Trump lashed out at the San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz. And even there, the Times only later noted that Trump had earlier, in error, told reporters that the mayor had come around.

To someone's credit, the Times cut from an earlier version a ridiculously unnecessary (and context-lacking) paragraph about Melania Trump's outfits: "Melania Trump, the first lady, accompanied the president, as she has on previous visits to storm-ravaged areas. She wore a navy blue sweater and pants, and stiletto heels, as she left the White House. But, as on earlier trips, she changed while en route into more practical boots and her own baseball cap."

This is where some truth-squadding is required, but Landler writes as if the Times were operating in a vacuum of actual information. This is his editors' fault. Many other Times reporters have chronicled the wildly insufficient federal response over the past two weeks.

The Times may be thinking that what Trump said is self-evidently insane, but it still owes the reader an explanation, as unwieldy as such an explanation will be. The explanation, in part: "pride" is an inappropriate reaction to a death toll; the actual death toll isn't in; "thousands" did not die in Katrina, it was somewhere under 2,000; the fact that Maria wasn't as deadly as Katrina was mostly in act-of-god territory rather than act-of-man territory; the most charitable analysis is that he was comparing the reaction of his administration and Puerto Rican authorities with that of Bush and Louisiana authorities, but there's no indication that any actions before or after Maria reduced fatalities; indeed, the big problem is that the relief efforts have been and continue to be "slow and inadequate."

This wasn't a verbal slip. He said it over and over and over again. See this part of the transcript of his comments.

This is totally unrebutted -- both that responders have don an "incredible job" and that Cruz now thinks so.

In summary, this is a great example of the Politico-ization of political news. It's superfice, punctuated by insidery shorthand.

This story is truly a case study in how not to cover Trump. It's stenography without context -- which was bad enough with a "normal" president.

This is only relevant, at best, if you consider the subtext, which was the much-criticized photo of her heading off to Texas in stilletos. But it doesn't belong in this story at all, really. It's just easier to write that than to explain complicated things.

What does that even mean?

Good of them to point it out, but what does that mean? He won't see x, y, and z would be helpful here.

So after more than a week of covering the insufficient federal response, the best rebuttal the NYT can come up with is a lame paraphrase from the mayor of San Juan?

The Times may be thinking that quote is self-evidently insane, but it still owes the reader an explanation, as unwieldy as such an explanation will be. The explanation: "pride" is an inappropriate reaction to a death toll; the actual death toll isn't in; "thousands" did not die in Katrina, it was somewhere under 2,000; the fact that Maria wasn't as deadly as Katrina was mostly in act-of-god territory rather than act-of-man territory; the most charitable analysis is that he was comparing the reaction of his administration and Puerto Rican authorities with that of Bush and Louisiana authorities, but there's no indication that any actions before or after Maria reduced fatalities; indeed, the big problem is that the relief efforts have been and continue to be "slow and inadequate."

depends on differnt people's values

Brittany Caine-Conley depicts police officers as acting as mere bystanders during the demonstration, watching as protestors and counter-protestors clashed and fought nearby. This is important because it reflects the common sentiments that police are often trained to respond only when situations are past the point of de-escalation. While there is the difficulty of balancing freedom of speech with law and order, situations like these seem to dictate having some sort of criteria and precedence for how police can/should intervene in violent public displays.

This quote is talking about the racism that went on in Charlottesville with the VA students. This is a good example of the racist and sexist things that people believe to be true despite science proving them wrong time and time again. This students account for some of the things that happened at this protest are wild. There are examples of rape culture in here too. I have never been a victim of racism, but I have had unwanted sexually violent things said to me by other people and it is always upsetting to know that these things happen to others in many many different situations. This is important because it highlights the idea that racism is not a problem by itself, there are other issues that come along with it.

Here's another great idea for found poetry.

Here's an idea that has a lot of possible extensions.

In part due to large uncertainties in the timescale of melting of the great land ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica (see what @bphorton said)

This is in the context of decades of industries sowing doubt about scientific evidence of human-caused global warming. e.g. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016#.Wc1bUNOGNN0

Because more than 90% of the energy added to the climate system is being stored in the ocean, causing sea level rise through thermal expansion. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence)." -IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers

It is also worth noting that global warming refers to global average temperature rising, but this does not necessarily mean that all locations across the globe are warming at all times.

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

According to a recent study, having fewer children has the largest impact on personal carbon footprint.

This is highly debatable, as even tool which are usually perceived to help mitigating climate (e.g. re-forestation), may not result in mitigation effects, depending on how they are implemented. A study on European forests has shown that afforestation since 1750 was responsible for an increase of 0.12 watts per square meter in the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, rather than a decrease, because of management choices.

The article does not mention the huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industry worldwide. According to the World Energy Outlook 2016, fossil-fuel subsidies were around $325 billion in 2015 ($490 billion in 2014) against 150 billion for renewables.

It is hard to attribute each particular event to human-induced climate change. The article correctly frames the influence in terms of increasing frequency and intensity of extremes, and directs the reader to a good reference page with clear explanations for non-experts.

On the scientific community side, the consensus is broad. It's worth revisiting Cook et al. 2015 "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" ERL. In their review they find a 97% consensus about human-induced global warming in published climate studies.

This is not universally agreed upon by experts. The key issue is that it is imprecisely written. I would not be surprised if the intent is correct. But taking it as it is written, it is not clear what "every tool available" includes. Technically, this should include truly everything, including simply shutting down all manufacturing that uses fossil fuels at all. Banning the driving of any vehicle except electric vehicles run on renewables. Banning flying. I doubt that was the intent of the sentence. The same issue holds for "moving as quickly as they can." What are the limits to"as quickly as they can"? Does it including shutting down the economy? Or is the intended sentence "moving as quickly as they cost-effectively can"? Thus, in short, while the idea is correct, this is imprecisely worded and can easily be critiqued.

This is correct. It cannot be done by only a few nations--it requires collective action to make a substantial difference.

This is correct. Our atmosphere is a global public good and addressing the issue requires large-scale action by most players.

The basic idea of this sentence is correct--that these cleaner sources may be somewhat costlier in the short run, but they also provide benefits that offset the short-run costs. The second part of the sentence is technically correct given that it uses the word "could," which provides a lot of leeway. A more complete story is that a switch towards these cleaner technologies on the margin for electricity would pay for itself given reasonable estimates of the health costs of fossil fuel generation and the social cost of carbon. It's also worth noting though that an immediate switch entirely to these technologies would incur transition costs that would likely tip the balance in the cost-benefit analysis, depending on the social cost of carbon used and what sectors we are talking about (are we talking about just electricity? industry? transport?). The vagueness of the statement means that it is less meaningful, but more difficult to critique.

It is important to note that until present the capture of CO2 is not perfect. While theoretically some the CO2 emissions could be avoided, a residual amount would still leak into the atmosphere. As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, it would either lead to continued (yet slower) warming, or have to be compensated by the active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is also not yet proven to work economically.

This is correct. While many countries show gradual declines in their emissions, global emissions are not yet declining. The past few years, global annual CO2 emissions have not increased as much as they did previously and remained roughly constant. However, to halt global mean temperature rise annual CO2 emissions have to become zero.

The current understanding of interactions between the global carbon cycle and the climate system is that when global CO2 emissions are reduced to zero, the warming will remain approximately constant. This is very often confused by estimates of committed "warming in the pipeline" which instead of assuming that global emissions are reduced to zero, assume that concentrations (and therewith to a large degree forcing) are kept constant. Keeping CO2 concentrations constant would require continuous emissions of CO2 that perfectly counter the uptake by natural sinks. If CO2 emissions are reduced to zero, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will gradually decline. For heat-trapping emissions other than CO2, the requirement to reduce them to zero to stabilize warming depends on their residence time in the atmosphere. For gases and particles that only stay in the atmosphere for shorter time periods (days to a decade) achieving constant emissions would also achieve approximately stabilized warming.

This statement is imprecise, and depends on value judgments of what "too late" means. Even emitting only a fraction of the available unburned fossil fuels would eliminate important ecosystems like coral reef habitats. For these ecosystems it will thus be too late. Because part of the CO2 that is emitted will remain in the atmosphere for many centuries, climate change constitutes a cumulative problem. Halting CO2 emissions before the last fossil fuel has been burned thus indeed commits the world to less impacts than the theoretically maximum. However, whether this is not "too late" depends on whether no irreversible or societally unacceptable impacts were reached before that point. The latter requires societal value judgments informed by scientific assessments, but is ultimately not a scientific question.

It's not only talk. Great Britain has already decided in favor of such a ban by 2040.

It is arguable whether natural gas is a reasonable solution even in the short run. I argued in favor of this 20 years ago, but nowadays we have to cut emissions more drastically than would be possible by switching to another fossil fuel. The CO2 coefficient of natural gas is still about 2/3 of that of coal. Efficiency factors of power plants are also somewhat better for natural gas than for coal. Overall, we might save a bit more than half of the emissions by switching to natural gas while renewables can save much more. Furthermore, given the long technical lifetime of power stations, the "short run" could easily extend to 2060 or more.

This is incorrect, at least if we want to stay anywhere near the 2 degree target. Especially coal reserves are so abundant (and there is coal gasification and coal liquefaction) that by far the largest part of them have to stay in the ground.

It is accurate to say sea-level rise is approximately one foot per century. Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm/yr (~1 foot over 100 years).

It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions. The IPCC5AR estimates 1 to more than 3 m (up to ~10feet) for high emission scenarios by 2300. But, AR5 projections of sea-level rise may be limited by uncertainties surrounding the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. For example, AR5 projected a likely contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) of -8 – 15 cm under RCP 8.5 by 2100, but a recent coupled ice sheet and climate dynamics model suggests that the AIS could contribute more than 1 m by 2100, and more than 10 m by 2300, under RCP 8.5.

If people refuse to solve the problem and civilization goes down, it should be noted that the rich have most to lose.

And this mostly just in the USA. In the rest of the world conservative parties accept the the science of climate change.

We are sure that natural factors alone could not have caused the observed warming, without the increase of greenhouse gasses there would not be so much warming, but they could have contributed.

For the period 1951 to 2010 our best estimate is that all of the warming was due to human activities. But natural factors could have warmed or cooled the Earth a bit. In the period around 1900 part of the warming was probably natural due to less volcanoes and a stronger sun.

It would have been more accurate to say that we can see that the CO2 increase is from burning fossil fuels by measuring isotopes, differences in the number of nuclear particles of atoms. Not all relevant isotopes are radioactive and the ones that are only a little.

Also important is that we have good estimates of how much fossil fuels we have burned, from which one can estimate the CO2 emissions. The increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about half of those emissions (the rest was taken up by the vegetation and the oceans).

Note that the warming over land is about twice as large as the warming over the ocean. Over the ocean more of the additional heat goes into evaporation of water rather than warming of the air. It furthermore takes time to heat up the oceans, just like a water kettle takes time to boil.

Because there is more land in the Northern Hemisphere it will warm more than the Southern Hemisphere.

A way to see how different two degrees are is to look at a region more towards the equator that is two degrees warmer. Nature will look very different.

It could also be said that eventually we must switch to renewables since all fossil resources are exploited. There is no long term alternative to renewable (as far as I know).

I agree with dlswain. "Ever" is kind of right from a human perspective but it may not be totally right.

Indeed! I get to a slightly different number, however, (i.e. 45 %) maybe because I used a different basis (280 ppm) and/or current CO2 value (i.e. 405 ppm from Maona Loa, August 2017). The message is correct!

While the exact details and timing of warming are subject to unpredictable decadal (semi-decadal) climate variability (e.g., ENSO, PDO, AMOC), this statement is largely true.

"Ever" is a long time, and it's not clear this is strictly true for the entire length of Earth's history. But there is strong evidence that this statement is true for all human-relevant timescales: in other words, the rate of CO2 emissions caused by humans is unprecedented since the age of the dinosaurs (i.e., at least 66 million years ago).

This is an important point. "Global mean temperature" (GMT) is a pretty abstract quantity, since any particular location on Earth is likely to experience it. Instead, GMT serves as a useful indicator of how much the Earth's climate has changed overall. While a helpful statistical construct, it masks that fact that the Earth is warming much faster than the global average in some regions (over land, in the Arctic) than in others (over the oceans).

This is a good way to describe the difference in language. It would also be reasonable to say that global warming (the increase in Earth's average temperature) causes climate change (shifts in the location/frequency/intensity of weather patterns). In practice, the two terms are often used somewhat imprecisely and interchangeably (even in the scientific literature).

The question of whether global warming will affect the frequency of hurricanes is indeed an open one, and research continues. There is stronger evidence, however, that warming will increase the maximum "intensity ceiling"/intensification rate of the strongest storms, the maximum rainfall associated with tropical cyclones, and the magnitude of oceanic "storm surges" that occur in an era of rising seas.

Indeed, there is now observational evidence that global warming has already increased the likelihood and magnitude of extreme heat and intense downpours across much of the globe.

This is a reasonable short answer to an extremely challenging scientific question.

This accurate statement succinctly summarizes decades of scientific research across a wide range of disciplines.

As the author correctly notes, the underlying chemistry dates back to the late 1880s.

Indeed.

This audio that was placed in this article was startling to hear as it starts off by hearing the neo Nazis chanting, "Jews will not replace us". This was an in depth, detailed explanation of what truly happened that devastating Saturday. Hearing that they appeared in armor with shields, goes to show how intense and violent they were prepared to be against others. They started prior to noon which crossed into the counter protestors which is where the violence began. This interview is significant because I was not aware of half of the things that happened and it was heartbreaking and uncomfortable to hear and listen to. It is important to feel uncomfortable and to have your stomach turn because people must be aware of what is happening in our current world because this is real and is not going away. It was also scary to hear young people made most of the neo Nazis up being around my age. It is important that we educate our future generations properly so we do not repeat history, as we currently are in comparison to World War II in regards to the Nazis.

I am annotating the title of the audio recording because my annotation is actually things mentioned within the recording. After listening to the recording and having watched many videos on the events in my personal time, as well as in other classes, something stood out. So everyone knows that this entire situation was unacceptable and morally wrong, however the deeper I dive into the details of the mindset behind the white nationalists, the darker things seem to get. In the recording Sheryl Stolberg described the white nationalists on that Saturday morning, as dressed in helmets, shields, and large weapons, almost "preparing for battle" as she said. This description just makes me wonder that much more how Donald Trump could proclaim that there were "very fine" people on both sides when one of the sides was essentially preparing to kill those who opposed them?

I find it interesting that these white nationalists can realize that if their identity while protesting were to get out it would cause them trouble in the future if they ever seeked office; however didn't seem to make the connection that the reason for their concern was that they realize what they are doing unwanted or wrong. They somehow believe they are the victims because other people are gaining the same rights they already have. As if when everyone became equal they would become less. The thought behind this make no sense to me. How could one not want others to be at their social level so badly that you would protest with almost seemingly intent for violence. The fact that they planned ahead with masks and such and openly admitted to that says to me they had intent that this would become what it did.

The difference between a patriot and a nationalists should be addressed. The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of their country for what it does , and the nationalist is proud of their country no matter what it does ; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war .

White Nationalists demonstrators refused to give their last names when tried to be interviewed at the rally. They said that they wanted to maintain anonymity in case they wanted to run for office in the future. However, most nationalists did not cover their faces or try to conceal their identities.

Name of the rally: Unite the Right.

The university of Virginia was in interim during the protest. White nationalists marched with torches throughout University of Virginia the night before chanting homophobic, antisemitic, and racial slurs. The President of the university advised students to refrain from attending the rally, stating that their safety comes first.

What does she mean when it says, "the constraints of what can be said", and "the infinite potential"? It's not clear to me. And why wrestling with the angel?

I don't understand how she believes "that you can get real definitions of things and people and experience." When it sounds like she doesn't write anything specific; so what is being defined?

I'm confused on what she means by "secondary definitions"?

Neomi Rao, newly confirmed administrator of White House Information and Regulatory affairs attempts here to renounce personal ownership of deregulation efforts instead framing the current move as the continuation of an existing motion present in previous leadership. She attempts to insure the rational saliency of deregulation through this logic of a theoretical continuum.

The damage to property could produce more work for local contractors, architects, etc that can start to boost their economy and help Texas out of this mess.

Atwood's rule that everything in Handmaid's Tale had to have some basis in historical events.

Political views are affecting many aspects of life.

There is always urgency in the media, and the views are always splitting which may create a confused, chaotic environment.

This definitely helps add to my point about tensions in America getting worse

Is there a difference in what the rotation of the winds do? Versus just location and temperatures

A lot of people were hurt and lost a otof things this very devastating to many.