162 posts • joined 5 Feb 2008
Re: 1980-2010 was warmer than 1970-2000
Squander Two, my point is that references to "CAGW" are generally made by those in denial of the basic physics of AGW. I'm pleased to see that you agree that the planet is warming due to our emissions of greenhouse gases.
Re: 1980-2010 was warmer than 1970-2000
· CO2 is a greenhouse gas the effect of which increases with its concentration in the atmosphere.
· The concentration of CO2 has increased from about 315ppm to 400ppm in the past 50 years.
· This has resulted in less heat being returned to space, ergo the planet is warming up.
I regard this stuff as very basic physics. What about you, Squander Two?
You missed ocean acidity increasing as it absorbs CO2. Not good for coral reefs or shellfish from krill upwards.
Re: Get your facts sorted!
"Ah, Sceptical Science, the noted purveyor of the green dream, so everything they say is true, I think not."
Ivan 4, why do you think not?
Re: Blue sky thinking
Tricky, when it's slowly bubbling up out of a vast area.
Re: Get your facts sorted!
Both statements are true: the rate of increase of atmospheric temperatures has declined while the excess heat retained by the greenhouse effect has gone into the oceans and latent heat to melt ice.
"the average global temperature has not risen in seventeen years"
You can't have been paying attention when you were briefed with which memes to concentrate on in the build-up to the release of this IPCC report. Even ignoring the fact that the heat is not just going into the atmosphere, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Re: It's the words: stupid.
"If these guys (or any of the other climate change bods) wants our attention - or even more: for someone, somewhere to actually DO something, they need much more than wishy-washy risks and dangers. They need numbers, dates, times and places. Who will die - specifically - their names please, when and what will the photos look like on the news reports. Who will have to pay. Which wars will break out and how much civil unrest will there be - and in which towns - and did they for for our party."
Therein lies the success of the propagandists denying AGW. They keep upping their demands for proof as the proof gets every more undeniable. I doubt they'd concede, even if they were having to paddle through floods to their charitable foundations and think tanks.
Unsettling for some
Judging by the comments here and elsewhere, it's clearly unsettling for those with a certain agenda that major corporations are publicly accepting that global warming is a serious concern and are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. The CEO of Apple even told investors complaining about their policy of building and using renewable sources of energy that it was the right thing to do, and they should sell their stock-holding if they didn't like it. It would be far more sensible to get out of fossil fuels, because those corporations are going to have to leave much of their products in the ground.
Just a thought, but we could try reducing greenhouse gas emissions to see if that helps.
Surely, if Feinstein's got nothing to hide, she's got nothing to fear.
Re: The Sun is the source.
As Senator Moynihan put it, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". The argument that the sun is the source has been debunked so many times that it's like trying to kill a zombie.
I must have missed the day when Lewis wrote about known positive feedback mechanisms that really could make climate change a big problem.
The odd one out?
I actually prefer my Nokia 925 to my previous Samsung with Android. The latest release of Windows Phone allows apps to be closed just like in Windows for PCs, but not much else has changed since I got it.
Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle
Science isn't decided by the number of votes you get for posting your opinion on a blog. However, if you're talking about consequent political action, astroturfing is clearly part of the battle for public opinion.
"Our findings reveal that Pine Island Glacier has experienced rapid thinning at least once in the past, and that, once set in motion, rapid ice sheet changes in this region can persist for centuries."
Good to have Lewis, with his deep understanding of climate science, reassure us that we haven't triggered an irreversible change that will result in sea levels rising by metres from all that melting ice.
A couple of Lenovo PCs I bought recently to replace XP came with Windows 7 installed and Windows 8 on DVDs. Having tried Windows 8.1 with ClassicShell and seeing it was similar enough to using Windows 7, I decided to bite the bullet and upgrade the Lenovos. The process of installing Win 8 from Lenovo's DVDs, then using Windows Update to go to Win 8.1 took about 3 hours for each PC! However, the users, who've been on XP for years, have said they much prefer the new environment, so I'm glad I did it.
Re: Chinese security risk
I'm still trying to understand why Edward Snowden was employed by Dell while he was working for the NSA, according to the Guardian ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-intelligence-leak-nsa-contractor-extract ). This raises questions as to how closely Dell is working with the NSA.
Chinese security risk
"The question may arise as to whether government clients may push back on having Chinese Lenovo kits in their data centres due to "national security" concerns."
That thought crossed my mind, before purchasing some Lenovo PCs and ThinkPads, but I dismissed it with the thought that if any back doors were discovered in their hardware they would be toast, so are unlikely to risk it.
What the hell would you like us to do about it?
Well, the sensible approach would be to accept that what the overwhelming majority of climatologists are saying is right, then have a political debate about how to tackle it. The stupid approach is to deny the science because its implications are financially, politically and socially inconvenient.
The argument that it will cost less to adapt to climate change than to try to prevent it is also looking increasingly unsupportable.
Re: Clinging to Orthodoxy
You'd have to come from Mars not to realise that clinging to orthodoxy is the essence of the problem that Snowden has unearthed. The intelligensia of East Germany didn't defeat the Stasi, because they could never create a mass movement from people who spied on each other. It might turn individual dissenters into terrorists (which would be twisted to legitimise the surveillance), but how on earth could opposition to an overbearing state grow under such intense monitoring?
Whenever I have a choice of apps to install, I choose the one that requires access to the fewest features of my phone, even if it's not the best. Why should a compass or torch app need access to my contacts?
Look at these appallingly salacious pictures!
"For example, say a woman is breast feeding in public and someone who is morally opposed to this ... takes a picture."
Does Michelle Menken work for the Dail Wail?
Re: Nice PR, but...
You're making an argument for never starting to change anything - which is either ridiculous, or disingenuous.
Re: I guess the issue is.....
Orange in France also charges a (high) monthly fee for a static address.
Re: That should be, "hasn't happened THERE".
Thanks for the heads-up about that interview . Dr. Campbell makes a powerful, if obvious point, which is unfortunately irrelevant. No amount of scientific proof will convince politicians to take action while the AGW denial propaganda continues to make it a vote loser. As the stock market valuation of fossil fuel companies is based on their known reserves, and the science implies that most of those reserves must be left in the ground, the propaganda isn't going to let up any time soon. We're easy prey to it because, like Dr. Campbell, we don't want it to be true.
"Climate changes. That's a fact. We do not know why."
Rule #1 for astroturfers: get in first and sow the seeds of doubt. Check!
Re: Good for them
I read that at an AGW denier blog as well, so it must be true.
Re: Another one sided article
You're right AC, I meant to put "sceptic" in quotes.
Re: Another one sided article
Another sceptic who's copying and pasting from the WUWT crib sheet.
Good for them
Saying that Inhofe's "position is part of a deliberate strategy to promote dysfunction and paralysis" is a polite description of a politician who's a paid lobbyist for the US oil and coal industries.
Re: If it's "not ready for prime time" ...
Why comment on it? Well, as is obvious, El Reg has an agenda* on this, so it cherry picks research that fits that agenda.
(* Spread doubt about the science, because its implications are curtains to neo-liberalism.)
Re: Why don't they just close the loopholes?
@AC: "what does the corporation get for paying the tx ? Health Care, nope, corporations don't use the NHS, Education, nope, and so on."
So who paid to educate their workforce and to provide the infrastructure to enable them to get to work? Multinational corporations using these tax avoidance schemes are parasites.
Re: Still pursuing his agenda
"The extremists on the other side who know its MMCC co2 theory and we all gonna fry get to make policy"
Err, no. The lobbyists for the fossil fuel industries get to make policy, no matter how often their claims are disproved as bull
Still pursuing his agenda
Interesting juxtaposition of headline and subheader:
'nothing to do with Arctic ice or warm oceans'
Could have been 'natural variability'
Lewis can always be relied upon to pick the most optimistic scenario.
Re: So, that's all right then!
One in four London properties, collectively worth around £250bn, are at risk of flooding, according to official assessments of the dangers now facing homes in England and Wales. Ten of the top 25 most at-risk local authority areas across England and Wales are now London boroughs, and that's before sea level rises by 1 metre.
So, that's all right then!
Anything less than 35 metres will be not be a problem - according to Lewis. Anything over 1 metre will flood most coastal cities, including London and New York.
Re: Business as usual
"Remain impossible? hell where have you been the last ten years?"
Observing from the sidelines, where it is obvious that the biggest culprit has blocked every proposal to legislate to reduce GHG emissions. Until the US leads the way, the rest of the world is reduced to making token gestures. However, the effectiveness of corporate lobbing of Congress means they're not going to move until public opinion forces them, hence all the propaganda to spread doubt and uncertainty about the science.
Business as usual
"Fine go ahead with it, but please climate skeptics don't blame the scientists when the media start producing headlines based on incorrect statements in unfinalized drafts."
That's the whole point of the exercise: accentuate the uncertainty and doubt, so that it remains politically impossible to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Re: All the news that fits the agenda
My point was that it's always possible to cherry pick the science you report on, to further an agenda. Here's a video (so you should be able to understand it), which doesn't cherry pick:
You may not be so confident that there is no urgency to reduce emissions fast after watching that. Alternatively, here's the reason why it's vital to keep pumping out the CO2:
All the news that fits the agenda
That's all right then. Nothing to see here, move along now. It's OK to keep emitting green house gases, because they may not cause temperatures to rise at rates predicted by other studies.
Spamhous must really be hurting those parasites
Blimey! Spamhous must really be hurting those parasites. Good on em!
Re: Is the author a gas trader?
Probably not, but he does have an obvious agenda. In pursuit of that agenda, a wave of propaganda was unleashed after the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to make it politically impossible to constrain greenhouse gas emissions. That's been so successful that we now have the predicted extremes of weather that leave us short of energy.
Re: Not sure this makes sense
Straw man arguments don't make sense either, but are typically used to promote an agenda.
Compare costs with Sky
For the huge range of activities the BBC undertakes, I'm happy enough paying the license fee. It's a bargain compared with Sky, where you have to pay to watch adverts!
Facts, facts, facts. Don't bore me with facts. Facts are just a minor inconvenience to AGW deniers. All they have to do is sow doubts about them and they make it politically impossible to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. After all, it wouldn't do to leave all those valuable fossil fuels unexploited.
The politics of it
Climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions, say the scientists ...
... because that conclusion fits their data.
No it isn't, say the neoliberals ...
... because that's incompatible with deregulation and unconstrained growth.
Hence we are bombarded with propaganda to cast doubt on the science and the scientists - and jolly effective it is too!
Re: Is distance charging really such a good idea?
Exactly! It's only a relatively small amount of power, but multiply that by the billions of these things, permanently plugged in, that will eventually be made, and we're talking about a lot of power stations.
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- AMD demos 'Berlin' Opteron, world's first heterogeneous system architecture server chip
- Leaked pics show EMBIGGENED iPhone 6 screen