And a mention for my favorite Hex editor......
XVI32 - for when you really need to edit a text file.
247 posts • joined 2 Sep 2009
XVI32 - for when you really need to edit a text file.
Citation required: Uranium (fission) is still simply too dangerous to mine, extract & use as well as the dangers of theft.
Please provide deaths per MWh in comparison with all other forms of energy generation. Also add in protected bird and bat populations as well ;o)
Seriously though fission is good and safe enough for the majority of base load generation (ask France) with gas (either fracked or not) for peak loads. Of course though all fuels are renewable (many take a bit longer than others) it's the rate of use that may not be sustainable.
Finish off all the content of DA1 (and awakening) - never seem to have enough time to sit down and play through it all. Might get my grubby mitts on this over Christmas and put some time in. Is DA2 worth paying budget prices for or should I skip it?
Like the ones GOSAT has been taking http://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatBrowseImage/browseImage/fts_l2_swir_co2_gallery_en.html
a wind farm. Cherry picked communities perhaps?
Who funded this study?
Where's the causation? Have they really eliminated any other factors or is it purely the "must be climate change" meme? Have they assessed the feed, local flora, grazing range, local populations (greater population would lead to more competition for resources reducing overall size over generations)?
Nope climate change- even though no one has been measuring climate for years (near surface temps are not climate).
Then they told me to stop looking out the window and get on with some work......
One way more energy in the system can be arranged. Given the atmosphere can contain H2O in all its states simultaneously - an increase at surface level in average kinetic energy is very unlikely and would only occur in the simplest of systems. So no "whilst the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing" it doesn't follow that "therefore so will the [surface]temperature."
No Statistically significant warming - ergo you cannot differentiate it from zero (allowing for errors etc.)
1870 - 2004 - period of 134 years (little consistent methodology)
1950 - 2009 - period of 59 years (mixed methodology)
1993 - 2009 - period of 16 years (current methodology)
And you are comparing rates of change? Seriously? Where did they learn statistics?
2 - IPCC AR5 - try reading the CAGW bible for a change and you'll see no link with "extreme weather"
3 - nope no warming in over half the satellite record. Try doing 2013-2003, 2003-1993 etc and see if your decadal pattern holds..... "upper ocean warming" - hmm pretty flat since 2010.....
Winter is coming.
No unfortunately it isn't (global ice is up). And no unfortunately it won't - albedo of water at north pole due to the angle of incidence is not vastly dissimilar to ice at the north pole - ergo the growing at the south pole especially as the area increase reflects more radiation (angle of incidence is less) is of great concern....
Winter is coming.
Dear lord - Skeptical science and "more reasoned" in the same sentence? Please that site is rabid CAGW to the point of hoping for it!
Try climate etc, watts up with that or jonova but please not a website from a (poor) cartoonist.
How much greater ice extent is required before the Earth's albedo is increased sufficiently to bring about another ice age?
How long have we got at current rates of increasing extent (btw it doesn't matter how thin this ice is)?
Is still using 1-2-3 for windows. Getting it installed and running on his Vista machine was rather convoluted IIRC. Suspect it will be more even more difficult on Win 8.....
Unless it has a big speaker and an analogue clock I'm not interested....
In space nobody can eat ice cream..........
[tag line from one of my favourite films - but they will need to be included in the Aliens category]
Full of disappoint.
And you'll probably find some mishaps when the "hoover" has been used to gratify the bottom layer of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
I guess all that additional sea ice must come from somewhere:
Oh and what global warming (even the IPCC acknowledge the "pause")?
IE 11 has some awful artefact bug and a font renderer that makes all the text blurry (still active bugs as of this morning). So I'd probably steer clear even if there was a Linux version (work machine was recently "upgraded" from IE 10).
Unfortunately given cognos 10 doesn't play well with modern browsers I do still need to use IE.......
Try getting a decently strong cup of black coffee anywhere.
"did you want another shot of espresso in there?" No I did not want another shot of espresso, I wanted only espresso, up to the brim. And no, please no "Americano" watering down, I'd rather put ice in my whisky. Just fill the damn thing with espresso and begone from my sight.
Some days it is only the caffeine induced shakes that keeps the blood flowing round.
TBH the only reason my wifi isn't permanently open is I don't want the neighbours randomly sending stuff to my wireless printer.
Look up the concept of "Evolutionary stable system" - and then think about how the earth as a water planet is able to keep such a relatively constant temperature (clue was in the question).
Relying on energy from nefarious regimes because of over reliance on unreliable renewables is dangerous (yes I'm talking to you Germany). Not sure who is being dangerous on this comments board?
C'mon noms I've even quoted parts of it to you. Here if you need a refresher http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
Chapter nine (physical science) page 768 has one of my favourite graphs ever - shows you how much skill the models have........
Oh you were being serious? "carbon corporation sponsers [SIC]"? Methinks you may not want to look at Ed Davey's or Lord Stern (head of CCC) register of declared interests or you head might explode.
The IPCC has backtracked on its fear mongering if you have even bothered to read the AR5 in its entirety - the summary for policy makers is barely related to the actual conclusions in the report. Or have you not read the holy tome of AGW this time around?
If my GP is anything to go by then no medicine is not a science..........
Leaches and scarification was the medical consensus not too long ago - and given the performance of consensus medicine over stomach ulcers in recent times I would probably not rate GPs as scientists......
So they have given us back the ability to click a red cross in a non-resizable app to shut it down. Obviously no one at MS has the task bar at the top of the screen set to auto-hide as I do. They have also removed the grab from top and sweep down to close the app on desktop mode. Can you see the issue I am having? Yep if I want to close an app first my auto-hide taskbar gets in the way, then the charms on the top right get in the way and finally I might be able to click the red cross.......
This is a sign of progress.......
I had just got used to win 8 - now win 8.1 has put me back to square one. Yes I could have the task bar on the bottom but I have it at the bottom for my work PC (that I remote into) so I can easily tell the difference on which machine I am on at anyone time.
Ahh the videos - had fantastically funny, in-between episodes, voice over. Such a shame it wasn't on the DVDs.
So you don't know what is changing, how it will change, when it will change and can't predict these changes but somehow we "know" we have damaged the environment?
That sir is faith. Not science.
Actually no. It goes back to 1996 two years before the 1998 el Niño. Merely starting from today and working backwards. The RSS as a satellite record (therefore isn't prone to the errors in the surface record) only goes back to 1979 so for half the satellite record there has been no warming (and definitely not accelerating unless accelerating downwards is what the poster was implying).
Yes like the RSS temperature record that shows no significant warming for the last seventeen and a half years..... or the increase in global sea ice..... or the comparable temperature increase profile with the warming in the 30s and 40s.... Those sorts of "verifiable and observable evidence" yes?
Oh and that word "accelerating" I don't think it means what you think it means.
So should fit in nicely with the rest of Alienware's range.........
Damn-it now I have to spend this evening digging around the attic for my Escher figurines.....
Is object oriented (changes position depending on the object), has terrible garbage collection (I have to manually take out the trash) and frequently runs out of memory (forgets things) then I can compare her to a rose but not Java?
Takes me back - had a 30MB hard card in my PC 1640 (5.25 and 3.5 DD took up the drive bays in the front). Add and adlib card and game card (for analogue joysticks) and that was my Amstrad's three 8bit ISA slots maxed out......
EGA wing commander at 8 MHz was a bit of a lag fest........
Is this any different than the http://pda.jcheck.com/firstcapitalconnect I use already?
Reduce global warming - are you mad sir? Global warming out of an ice age is the only thing that gives us enough food to eat and enough water to drink. If the glaciers start expanding again - total arable land will reduce, growing seasons will shorten, sea levels will drop, extreme weather events will increase in number and duration and as the oceans uptake more CO2 as they cool, plants will reduce in numbers and the deserts will expand.
Global warming might cause a few issues in the next 2 centuries (nothing bad this century according to the IPCC AR5 report) but global cooling is faster and far more detrimental to life on this planet.
I have the solution. Give me the £10 million. I will use this to prove conclusively that an increase from 200 ppm to 600 ppm of CO2 in a water triple point dominated atmospheric system does not lead to catastrophic climate change.
We can then start spending some of the $1 billion dollars a day wasted on researching "climate change" on solving the 6 problems above.
Strange view of markets you have there. The price is not "set" but is a consequence of supply and demand. If the supply is reduced the price goes up - the more players in the market the less likely any single supplier can control the price (without collusion that is - e.g. OPEC).
If a price for one resource rises it can make certain extraction techniques financially viable (e.g. fracking) - if it drops then these methods are no-longer viable. Given the length of time and money it can take to get particular method of energy supply off the ground governments sometimes provide financial guarantees in a we'll buy at x price (above market rates) for the next y number of years (wind/solar/nuclear all have such guarantees in the UK).
So no the price is not "set" by the "international market".
First thing that came to my mind as well - so thumbs up for the quick youtube find. Now where did I leave that Blue Öyster Cult LP?
And be the first to hack some cows.
This is only on the one side and a small part of Antarctica - you are erroneously extending this to the entire Antarctic. The record ice extent is around most of Antarctica not just near this glacier. Hence what you say does not apply.
It might support 4k but it won't game at 4k - passmark score puts it in the Radeon HD 5670 class (a three generations old mid range card good for 1680x1050 resolutions) .
Given as you can get a low profile version of the HD7750 I suspect a weaker CPU plus small discrete card would be a better combination.
I probably wouldn't use the MET office as an example for super computer predictive excellence - their model has been shown to run "hot" pretty much consistently. Their predictive accuracy has been shown to be less than a random walk model and the amount of howlers they have published concluded with them no longer publically releasing their long term forecasts (though HM gov still gets a copy).
So take the 1000 times then. So a doubling of CO2 leads to an increase of about 3 degrees in the atmosphere (including feedbacks - IPCC bad case scenario) - so this is 3/1000 of a degree warming in the oceans........
So rough approximation of square root of f' all (all things being equal).
Again where is the problem AC? Even AR5 says the likelihood of anything negative happening before 2100 is at the "very low confidence" level.
You need to go back to school. The heat capacity of the oceans is magnitudes greater than the atmosphere. Ergo for all intensive purposes it is infinite. So if the heat is somehow magically going into the oceans now when it wasn't before it makes global warming a non-problem (for the heat to come back out of the oceans would require the laws of physics to change - and y' canna' change the laws of physics).
May I be the first to offer my apologies to whomever has been using my TV's mic and webcam to spy on me. I hope the therapy goes well and that the agency you work for foots the bill.