Re: Oh Noes!!!!111

Cough

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/23/cellular_hijacking/

And as to your assumption that any savings to power companies are passed onto the customers and not their share holders - please see image at the side of this message.

PS - the real world called said something about coffee and olfactory senses.

Re: Whilst I can see the value.....

Did you forget the sarc tags or are you really that naive? Whilst you may not have a specific line on the invoice/bill saying "smart meter" do you really think the power companies will allow their profits to dip during the smart meter roll-out?

The consumer and tax payer always pay in the end - as that is where the money comes from.

Re: A debt is still a debt.

An unsecured debt is unsecured against anything - not even the estate. As such, whilst you can't take it with you when you go, time it right and you can take a hell of a lot of the credit card companies :o)

Re: Depressing

There are other sources of petrol chemicals that only become financially viable if the basic price of crude exceeds a certain value. Given the price is pretty much set by the producers (as OPEC was set up to do) any shortage is more often than not a function of production (the USA, Russia, OPEC etc could flood the market but at around $100 a barrel everyone is happy - except the poor and hungry but they weren't buying much anyway - better to burn their food as fuel instead eh?)

PS believing in a fuel shortage is supporting the high prices - it's only a shortage becuase the taps have been turned down.

Re: Are we Super Humans?

Yes the northern hemisphere. You know where the population is. Step away from wikipedia and study some atmospheric chemistry yourself and you might realise that the Chlorine in the upper stratosphere is assumed to come from CFCs (also assumed the majority of natural sources from volcanoes etc are "washed out" ). Ozone level is frequently a function of atmospheric dynamics and not simple atmospheric chemistry.

Low boiling points do not escape the density problem. If the CFC is broken down to chlorine before transportation to the upper atmosphere then it will get "washed out" in the same way volcanic Cl is removed (according to the current belief) . Brownian motion cannot escape convection currents and evaporation is for liquids (if it's got a low boiling point then we are discussing gases are we not?) Pehaps we need to revisit our understandings?

Re: The price is not right

Have an upvote- still use my 555 - four years and going strong (though I paid £45 for it) .

Re: Depressing

Catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change via CO2 emissions? Nope not enough evidence. Natural Climate change caused by many factors of which our understanding and reliable data is in a nascent stage - yep sign me up. The historic proxy record indicates the earths climate exists in two semi stable states - ice age and interglacial. The tipping points between the two are unknown (except that CO2 increases come after temperature increases). There is no indication of a thermageddon state even when CO2 levels have been higher than today. The AGW crowd insist the modern era is special yet evidence suggests (warming period of the 1930-40s) the only thing special is our ability to measure the earth from space.

The limited resources concept is also a myth. The stone age didn't end when we ran out of stone - the oil age won't end due to lack of oil. Have some faith in us :)

Re: How is this newsworthy?

Noms do you practice only reading one bit that you can disagree with and ignoring the rest? If the GWP of CO2 was rated as 1 but has been shown in real world conditions to be a factor of 3.75 out what does that make the real GWP of CO2? Answers on a postcard.

Re: Are we Super Humans?

I think you better look again at the Ozone layer and CFCs. Especially data from this century. Also I suggest you look at the role of Dupont in the Montreal Protocol.

PS given the density of CFC how do you explain how it gets from the land masses of the northern hemisphere to the Antarctic Ozone Layer?

Re: How is this newsworthy?

Nom - read my post. Made up because the GWP of CO2 has been over estimated and given as there is no build up of these other gases in the atmosphere their GWP = a bit fat nothing.

Re: Climate changes, but

Noms back again with the myths? Oceans out-gas CO2 as they warm and sequester CO2 as they cool. This is real science not "Climate science" .

Increasing CO2 had a brief correlation with temperature at the tail end of the last century. On all other occasions in the historic temperature record CO2 increase follows temperature increase (there's a bit of a lag). This is no longer the case hence no correlation = no causation QED. The majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linked to burning of fossil fuels (the isotope ratio proof is no such thing - too much wrong with it to be reliable) .

Given as the reduced solar activity is considered the cause of the flat lining temperatures - with help from unmeasured soot etc. (according to your jolly fellows at RC and SkS) who is being arrogant and unwise?

Re: How is this newsworthy?

Ahhhh the GWP (global warming potential) what nice made up figures they are. Given as the increase in CO2 has led to a mere 0.8 degrees warming in the last 100 years (and not the 3 degrees predicted in the IPCC report the GWP are based one) then all GWP are out by a factor of 3.75 at least (not withstanding the poor assumptions used for each GWP) .

Given as there is no measured incease of many GWP gases in the atmosphere how can they "trap more heat" - just because they are being emitted does not mean they have an effect. Poor theory, poor data, poor science and poor us (and getting poorer if this nonsense is not reversed soon) .

Pot and kettle noms?

Seems a bit obtuse to insist on uncertainty ranges now. Where were the uncertainties when anthropogenic CO2 was declared the driver of global warming? BTW Bob Tisdale has got a lot to say about the NODCs 0-2000m OHC (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/nodcs-pentadal-ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000m-creates-warming-that-doesnt-exist-in-the-annual-data-a-lot-of-warming/) so your previous points might need updating.

Re: The Disgusting part of Reg

Funny you must be reading a different El-Reg. Comprehension of climate change appears to be much higher here than on other sites (RealClimate, SKS, Guardian to name a few) .

Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

Ahh noms back again....

"Correct for the corrections? IOW uncorrect it?"

Yep when the Argo buoys were originally launched the measurements returned were a lot lower than expected so the figures were "adjusted".

Good old Trenberth again - yes ultimately the energy is lost to space as radiation (at the edge of the atmosphere - though of course some is lost by escaping molecules) but now work out the energy required to run the hydrological cycle. Also work out the how much energy is used in the photosynthesis cycle. We have a lot of energy used within the system changing the state of water which takes up energy at the surface and lower levels and moves it (against gravity) to higher levels of the atmosphere. Also the earth is not a black body so most of the estimations of the energy budget are fudges bigger than the biggest fudge you can imagine.

Extra sunlight does "work" on the system therefore increasing the temperature. Extra CO2 does not do any extra work so does not increase the temperature. Now if you wish to challenge the laws of thermodynamics go ahead.

Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

Wow capital letters with assertations - well I'm convinced. I can see you're a keen reader of SkS with your ocean heat content myth. Please check your OHC trends again and this time use the latest figures (don't stop at 2006) and also please correct for the Argo "corrections" .

As to more CO2 being bad - given radiative energy transfer is the slowest means of energy transfer (or thermos flasks wouldn't work) How can slightly changing the amount of CO2 in a convection current (the atmosphere) change surface temperature? The surface is losing energy at a particular rate (via convection, evaporation and radiation) you slightly reduce the radiative rate - would that not just increase the convection/evaporation rate without subsequent temperature increase?

Re: An open letter to Mr. Gates

Given as rhino horn is used for the "handles of curved daggers called jambiya” I'd suggest maybe something in plastic would be a good substitute. As for medicine: "is used to treat fever, rheumatism, gout, and other disorders. According to the 16th century Chinese pharmacist Li Shi Chen, the horn could also cure snakebites, hallucinations, typhoid, headaches, carbuncles, vomiting, food poisoning, and “devil possession." I'd suggest Aspirin, liver salts and maybe some kind of anti-psychotic maybe Levomepromazine.

The problem with Rhino horn is not lack of substitutes but a cultural issue.

Non-alarmist <> alarmist research

Pot kettle, kettle pot.

Re: The interesting bits...

Which version of GISS did it match? I guess the more version of GISS output available the greater chance of matching one of them.

Did I accuse anyone of false warming or was it cooling of historic data as per outlined in GISS own statement?

Just because two people get 2+2=5 doesn't make it any more correct.

And no they didn't take the "raw" data from around the world.

Re: The interesting bits...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

They do change past data - from one of their own links "century-scale global land surface air temperature trend is higher using the v3.2.0 data. with v3.1.0 the adjusted... was 0.94 degrees C per century with 3.2.0 the trend is now 1.07 degrees C per century... The greatest differences between the two versions of the adjusted datasets are in the data for years prior to 1970."

Doesn't sound much like a myth to me.

Best did not take the "Raw" data (in fact a lot of the "raw" data has gone missing) .

Re: By 2036

Whilst I've been nowhere, done nothing and life has sucked thus far - another 23 years of it and I'll be ready to go as well......

Re: By the time the 486 and Pentium came along, 386s dropped out of sight.

Thanks for that - good bit of nostalgia on the linked site.

Re: Why...

I think it's for the same reason we all have the urge to press a big red button (especially if it has a sign saying "Don't Press" )

Hyperlinks are a known "bad" especially as they frequently point to things best left unseen.

Give it a month or two.........

Give it a month or two until the usual crowd of twitchers find something else shiney to play with and online should be fine again (find this with BF3 whenever new content is available - just drop back to MW3 or BFBC2 for awhile).