This needs to be updated to take in the upper house. Can't be any worse than what we have.
362 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
This needs to be updated to take in the upper house. Can't be any worse than what we have.
The term medium certainty was discussed in the climategate emails and it was decided the lower threshold should be 34%.
I have offered anyone who accepts this a little wager. If you are medium certain that a dice will come up 1 or 2 we can play a game:
Every roll that comes up 1 or 2 I will give you £1.30 (because 34% is more than 33% I'm giving you odds)
Every roll that comes up 3,4,5 or 6 you give me £1.00
After we have done 20 rolls you can decide to stop or continue. I'm happy to play until your money runs out.
The elephant in the room is that neither UAH or RSS is claiming hottest year ever.
I wonder why we put them up there if their data is less reliable than the ground stations.
And it now turns out that there is a 38% certainty on the hottest year ever based on adjusted land station claims...that should have at least been used to caveat the press release rather than having prised out a 2 weeks later.
Strange how people choose to holiday closer to the equator, and in summer too. Spending all that cash to go to unsustainably hot areas.
Don't understand it myself.
And I haven't got time to check right now, but in copyright law isn't there provision for 'Quoting'
"Are you seriously suggesting all databases can be replaced with text files?"
No one said that.
But I'm suggesting the registry could. It's a list of parameters. Show me anything that needs relational integrity or any other database type feature.
It's always been a buttpain. It doesn't get cleaned up properly unless you use 3rd party tools so it bloats.
And the fact that running code from it is even allowed is a serious enough flaw that it should be deprecated, locked from further use and left to die.
I think you may have fudged some numbers...
6,000ppm is no where near as lethal as you have suggested.
You need to get to 20,000ppm before the effects are apparent.
80,000 to 150,000ppm before there is a danger of death.
(1% is 10,000ppm)
(% in air)
2-3 Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.
Oh dear. The "what if we made a better world for no reason" argument.
I don't know where to start.
I'm glad you proper scientists know the heat is in the oceans.
The Met Office in its paper Implications for Predictions says:
"whilst the second report suggests that the recent pause in surface warming may, in part, be due to internal variability in the oceans and how heat is taken up below the ocean surface."
I guess the "may" and "in part" were put in there to instil some confidence?
...for me at least.
I like Nokia hardware and I like Android software. I will watch with interest...
I was being mischievous. I thought that might have been clear from the last couple of lines.
See this for my real views...
Yep, by the time the Siberians, Lapps and Inuit have got fought through the layers, the feeling has worn off ;)
(Bring it on offendatrons)
...instead of more modelling exercises.
40 years of action on global warming and the only effect has been raised taxation, more expensive fuel and a few people getting rich in the carbon credits market. CO2 continues to rise.
Renewables and energy storage still hasn't advanced in efficiency and looks to me like a busted flush.
Radical I know but if the science is settled and you must be mad to deny the catastrophe, and the absence of any way to mitigate world hydrocarbon use, further research into causes and effects is futile. 97%* of people who know about it are 95%** certain so let's take their funding and start building sea walls, irrigation/drainage schemes, desalination plants, nuclear power stations before it is too late.
Footnote: I have a couple of surefire investment opportunities. A citrus farm in Sussex and a vineyard in Lapland. DM me for my paypal details if you want to chip in...
**I know about this too
Every ton of hydrocarbon we don't burn China will burn for us.
Nancy boy windmills chopper in cam outrage...
Any subs jobs going?
(Hate away by the way I don't give a toss)
I would be happy to give my employer my linkedin, twitter and facebook account passwords. I have already set up unused/innocuous accounts for this very purpose.
My relatives from Sheffield always used to refer to sweets as 'spice.' Confused the hell out of me when I was a kid. I hadn't even read Dune then.
I only write this stuff, you don't expect me to read it too.
...solve today's problems today. Today's energy problems are fuel poverty and the real risk that the lights will start going out because we have an impending energy gap.
Whatever fiddling around with spreadsheets you want to do the uncertainties are too great. It's open to both halves of the debate to change a number here or there to make the answer support their arguments. And why they are all arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the opportunity to address some real problems are passing us by.
Our descendants will have a better chance of dealing with there problems if they inherit a strong infrastructure and economy. If all the effort that was going into fiddling around with mitigations for a disaster that might not happen had gone into research into, for instance, new ways of using the limited hydrocarbon resources we have we would be in a better position in 100 years.
It is depressing that this is not going to happen. It seems everyone but Eastern Bloc and China are prepared to sacrifice their futures to the opportunity to keep the populace in fear and dependency.
BTW, the first person who says 'consensus' loses the argument, K?
I worked on that copy of ETI and Computing today - just saying.
I think it was 1999 they said there was no more code to be developed. Muppets of the first order.
Subway - underground walkway for crossing the road
Underground - trains but only in London
Metro - Local underground/overground in other cities
And lest we forget, until 1999 HK _was_ England ;)
Went for an interview once and feedback said the office manager took exception to my M&S suit. I didn't get the job but took great pleasure telling yes, it was an M&S suit...but I got it at Oxfam. I don't suppose I will ever work at Toshiba now. Good.
...and also not very clever.
Nice to see my taxes are well spent.
..."how do I report abhorrent rape images" or some variant.
Asking for a friend.
...I've seen the exec summary of the audit report...
"Huawei kit arr light, no plobrem"
Well it is Friday afternoon.
Coat - got.
...at the end the general consensus is:
* that leaves taste like leaves
* that you need an awful lot of leaves to satisfy you
* vegetable protein is almost impossible to find for most of the year
There is a reason that non agrarian civilisations were all meat eaters.
...insults from am anonymous account.
Posted Thursday 25th April 2013 10:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
...phone from the same street and tell them you've recovered the your goods and the perp needs an ambulance.
The victim of a crime should never, never be placed in the wrong.
Posted Wednesday 17th April 2013 13:03 GMT Frankee Llonnygog
No downvotes here but I guess it is horses for courses. I can kick off any of the applications I need with at most 2 clicks from my wireless mouse.
...what it can do that my retired pc running kubuntu connected to my telly can't do.
<quote>It means that the coming centuries will be hotter.</quote>
Or colder, or stay roughly the same.
...I must remember to cover mine up.
Pretty soon the only people who will be able to afford to fly are environmentalists going to the next conference so - meh.
Hopefully she will never breed because the thought of it will offend mightily.
I have a 3" floppy and and a 5" hard one.
I suspect, at least in the UK, BTS is a loss making proposition. What better way to shed customers and minimise the impact of stopping support than to price themselves out of the market.
Look into my eyes and repeat after me "Warm weather was not predicted by the climate models"
... it looks like an accident waiting to happen
The 1938 hurricane would have had a bigger impact had it hit the Boroughs. And there are a lot more waterfront properties than there were then.
One thing is for sure sides of the argument will seize on this as using selective quotes to prove that is was/was not CO2 that caused it.
Note that I did not say climate change. The climate changes and it is definitely affected by people. The question in my mind is how the changes can be attributed to CO2 and the cost of the precautionary principle.
My kinda rig.
...because of the misleading headline. Now I've wasted 5 minutes of life I can't get back.
...it's not as bad as the models predict.
Who da thunk it.
...was elegant and clean. I loved it. And the compilation was predictable. I could look at the object code and see exactly where it came from.
Posted Wednesday 27th February 2013 11:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;" - James Lovelock proposer of the Gaia Hypothesis
A proper scientist. He proposed a hypothesis which was not born out by the facts so he looked for another one.
AC Posted Tuesday 26th February 2013 10:53 GMT
And one wet year does not constitute unprecedented extreme weather that we can come to expect. But the BBC was pushing it as such yesterday.
...the Met Office figures don't confirm no warming for 17 years.
(read carefully before frothing at the mouth)