huh I thought sky and sunday times were both owned by murdoch. well part owned anyway.
2180 posts • joined 14 Apr 2011
yes because deliberately selling faulty chips won't cause a business to totally lose its reputation
Real Authors use Notepad
Does twice as much energy mean the black hole they inadvertently create will be twice as large, or does the inverse square law apply?
Re: building new hardware to find the second most common cause of AGW.
there is no temperature plateau
Re: Tackling the symptoms, not the cause
I think that's the gist of what the scientist was saying. Geo-engineering projects need to be sustained in the longterm. Which means it all goes to shit if some crazy future administration decides it doesn't believe in the science anymore and cancels the project.
"Well, of course deploying this sort of tech would be a stupendously bad idea. It's a complete unknown; all we have are models that keep being proven inaccurate at best, and biased for political reasons at worst."
It's funny how "unknowns" and "inaccurate models" are used as a justification to CONTINUE uncontrolled CO2 emissions.
But as soon as it comes to any other subject (geo-engineering or medicine for example) "unknowns" and "inaccurate models" are cited as a reason to AVOID the action in question.
Wonder why there is such a wildly different approach. One that assumes it is fine until proven dangerous, the other that it is a crazy idea until proven safe.
It is quite funny to read various climate skeptic blogs discussing this news about geo-engineering in which climate skeptic commentards drop their guard and shriek hysterically about the dangers of modifying the climate, citing the "law of unintended consequences", wailing "not on my planet!" and bemoaning the risk of messing around with the climate.
Somehow in complete contradiction to their casual don't-give-a-shit attitude towards ongoing CO2 emissions which are not only a form of geo-engineering but an uncontrolled one. Yet in that case the "law of unintended consequences" doesn't get a mention and anyone who dares suggest such a thing would be labelled as "alarmist".
If any evidence were needed that their "nothing to see here" attitude towards CO2 is all about the $$$
In the vacuum of space the only insulator is that which can block radiation from escaping, ie greenhouse gases like CO2. Mars has a very thin atmosphere so even though CO2 dominates, it has less CO2 than Earth. The heat on venus cannot be explained other than through the greenhouse effect
Re: Why bother?
yet the world continues to heat up.
"A much bigger impact is the upwards convection of warm air at the equators taking heat away and allowing it to cool in the upper atmosphere"
That would cool, not warm the surface. The greenhouse effect which CO2 contributes to is why the Earth isn't covered in ice.
venus absorbs less sunlight than Earth
actually the answer is that the OCO-2 satellite doesn't show absorption of CO2 and therefore the "thinkers" who imagine it shows the CO2 all comes from the rainforest aren't seeing a greater amount of CO2 being sunk into the biosphere and oceans elsewhere. The human emission being the breaking point that is causing CO2 levels to rise. Whack.
Is it as bad as prometheus and interstellar?
"They publicly put out a heavily edited upwards graph after adjusting the data and then took it down when criticized it didnt reflect reality"
your recollection is a pile of steaming shit then. What you describe never happened.
The temperature records have been independently confirmed again and again.
Re: Raw Data Anyone?
"After all, releasing the raw data would reveal the true temps"
Well go at it then because the raw data from the weather stations have always been available.
Re: This summer was globally the warmest on record
"And this article focusing on the UK and the very wrong statement implying something which is demonstrably untrue"
Bob Ward is absolutely correct in his assessment. It's this article that is wrong. Perhaps you forget the heatwave at the end of July? Well this article averaged it out with the cool August to make in vanish.
The fact is the year to date in the UK is the warmest on record. Above average temperatures have persisted for the majority of the year. The climate normal in the UK is rising as the globe warms.
Central England Temperature requires the rest of the year to average just +0.6C above average to break a new record. All but one month this year has been above +1C and November is already so far +1.4C above average.
The absurd assertion in the article that we could just as easily see the coldest year on record requires November and December to be 25 degrees C colder than average.
Such straws to cling on just to deny the country, and the world is warming.
The world has continued heating up in recent years, despite the sun going quiet.
Ocean temperatures are currently the hottest on record for example.
If the quiet sun has ANY cooling effect AT ALL, then be very afraid because it has been completely overwhelmed by the rising greenhouse gases and means we have an even sharper jump in temperature in store when the Sun picks up again.
Re: I find this report...
I don't know but I found a satellite with a similar orbit and NASA say:
"The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite was launched to monitor rainfall in the tropics. Therefore, it has a relatively low inclination (35 degrees), staying near the equator."
Altitude: 350 km, boosted to 402 km on August
"The TRMM orbit is non-sun- synchronous and initially was at an altitude of 350 km, until the satellite was boosted to 402 km on August 22, 2001. The objectives of TRMM center on rainfall and energy, including latent heat of condensation."
So what does this mean for 345 by 363 Kilometers at an inclination of 43.5 degrees?
macro means big micro means small
i learn things
Dear anonymous terrorist,
sorry but it is funny and has an undercurrent of underspoken truth
"Collins and three other defendants, Anthony Tadros, Thomas Bell and Geoffrey Commander called their pleas in on the misdemeanour offence yesterday."
Did they find out who was in charge?
Re: Follow the money...
only problem is such a simulation already ran in real life on a computer the size of the planet earth, and it took millions of years to produce intelligent creatures. There's little hope of producing anything equivalent by evolution on a small computer in a human lifetime.
Re: "Frog" brain... or "any" brain...
The public are fed such BS to believe that AI is capable of far more than it is actually is. I get told that "they" have now made a computer as intelligent as a mouse, but I know that isn't true because AI just isn't there. I know full well what they've really done is create something analogous to the structure of a mouse brain. But how can I argue with newspaper articles? Everyone wants to believe hard AI is just 5 years away and they don't like me sounding like some neo-luddist when I say it's rubbish. People don't realize how frickin stupid AI is still and how ludicrously ahead of reality some of the proposed pie in the sky ideas (eg "google self-driving cars") and the like are. I think gamers perhaps have a better appreciation of how crap AI really is because they get to see the results (or lack of) of attempts to get code to do something truly intelligent - and that's in a controlled environment!
The best defense against a leak is to immediately leak a flood of substantial information yourself on a similar yet less important subject, but deliberately promote it as a shocking reveal. That way the media will focus on the larger more detailed leak you provided and overlook the real less detailed damaging leak.
Am I the only one who does not believe this hype about driverless cars?
This happened a few weeks ago. I was driving along a 60mph road. Ahead of me was a lorry parked in the opposite lane. Of course I see this ahead and start slowing down. Presumably an AI could do that too, I'll give it that much.
I notice a workman is standing in front of the lorry holding a pole that says "STOP". So of course I stop, and knowing the implications of this I leave enough space for traffic coming the other direction to pass. My human brain has learned this pattern of "workmen managing traffic" and I know on the other-side of the lorry is a workman holding a "GO" pole.
What would a driverless car do though? Would it stop and leave enough room for other cars to pass? Or would it ignore the pole and continue going through at 40mph only to break sharply when a car from the other direction pulled into it's lane? Then what? The driverless car presumably isn't going to reverse. So it's blocking the traffic. So the meat in the driver seat has just shit themselves and is fumbling to regain control.
I've said it before. If modern AI were really capable of driving a car then WHERE IS THE FRICKIN AI in simpler settings?
The dearth of decent AI in video games speaks volumes about the true capability of AI today.
Re: Warming since 1997 not being statistically significant does not mean
"Actually it does. That's why all real science uses statistics to prove their models"
Are you really claiming that a trend of +0.07C/decade since 1997 not being statistically significant PROVES the trend is <= 0C/decade?
Because that's what your claim that there's been no warming amounts to.
Re: No Surprise Er...
"Will a doubling of Co2 cause some warming? Probably."
It's certain that a doubling of CO2 will cause some warming.
"Is it responsible for all the warming observed over the past 150 years? Certainly not. We know this because if Co2 was the primary driver, then the last 15 years should have seen large temperature increases (we're pumping out more Co2 now than at any other time). As we all know, that hasn't happened."
That doesn't logically follow. If the observed CO2 increase since 1900 caused 1C warming, then it would be responsible for all the warming since 1900. The last 15 year period of data cannot rule that out.
The last 15 years in hadcrut4 shows a trend of 0.067C/decade, and uncertainty in the data means it could be even higher than that. It's not the case that you can conclude there's been no warming.
Re: Ha ha ha ha ha
I very much doubt you've read AR5. More likely you've let skeptics read it for you and tell you what's in it.
you forgot the icon ---->
"Rothschild and Canadian banker David Lang....Faked moon landings....The Club of Rome.....NWO global government....Chemtrails...Agenda 21.....depopulation plan....Obama...lizard people...Goldman Sachs"
Re: It's the beginning of the next Maunder Minimum.
Some people are knee-jerk reactionaries looking for anything to believe in so they don't have to accept the dominant influence of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists understand that the Sun just doesn't vary enough to cause large changes in global temperature.
In the real world sunspots have already dropped to what they were 100 years ago. Yet the planet continues to heat up.
Re: They (and really everyone else) don't get it
I always cheer both sides, it's a fantastic conflict and long may it continue.
Re: There are multiple plausible ways to do this
or you could fly up to the unguarded satellite and put your DVD in the tray.
Just saying, there are easier ways.
It's arrogant for atheists to claim there is no God but then go on to claim there are aliens. There is absolutely no evidence for aliens. They are not mentioned in the Bible and even the science books admit no aliens have been found. They are made up creatures like zombies and seahorses.
All the telescopes in the world have been spinning round frantically looking for aliens but every planet scientists zoom in on they just find different color rocks or gases, NO aliens. NASA supposedly landed men on the moon, if so they must have looked real hard in craters and suchlike when they were there but still NO aliens. So when are they going to get a clue and admit defeat? It's the 21st century boys, it's high time to grow up and stop believing in little green men.
Protective suits? Sure except helmets are annoying and get in the way, don't worry though just take it off I am sure it'll be fine. Didn't you watch Prometheus?
"There's no point in haggling about hottest or coldest years when the data source is irredeemably shite"
Brighter people than you or me have managed to extract a climate signal out of the world's weather data. So go ahead and continue claiming it can't be done, but it has.
Re: Right action for the wrong reason - get your facts right
I did look it up and I am right
Re: Right action for the wrong reason - get your facts right
CO2 rise has always had a warming effect, it's scientific fact.
AJ MacLeod is correct.
Just because there are a lot of stars out there does not make it "likely" that there's life on another planet. All it tells us is that the odds of life developing is above zero. It could still be far too small for it to have developed anywhere else. The fermi paradox would seem to be some evidence that this is the case, at least for intelligent life.
Re: she might have been hoping to get him hooked on heroin
Unfortunately drugs these days are cut with rat poison and bleach. One of my friends OD'd on cannabis because it was extra strength but his street dealer didn't see the need to tell him. They found him with the needle still in. It's tragic I just hope the government crack down on illegal drugs for the sake of our kids. Why people can't just stick to safe legal drugs like wine and tobacco I do not understand.
The lizard people exhale 99% CO2 from their big reptilian mouths. They walk among us in huge numbers. The last thing they want is to be discovered. Not yet anyway, not before Obama, their leader, has reached his full size.
Re: Interesting, but of little consequence
When CO2 was over 2000ppm the Sun was fainter. More CO2 was needed back then just to keep temperatures above freezing.
Re: CO2 lasts decades?
"Typically, process parameters that follow driving inputs this closely (there appears to be about a three month lag), will respond just as quickly to a change in the long term inputs."
I don't know anything about "simple control systems theory" but your argument is just unsound from the point of view of logic. I can think of any number of examples where your argument would fail.
For example a bath of water in which water is being added so that it's water level slowly increases over time. Add waves that make the water level fluctuate at any given point. Now you would say that those rapid fluctuations in water level mean that if we stopped adding water to the bath the water level would rapidly fall! But in fact the rapid fluctuations in water level clearly tell us nothing about how fast the water level would fall if the water stops being added.
I think the mistake you've made is you've coined an argument that assumes the cause of the short term cycle and the longterm increase are the same.
And in the case of CO2 the cause of the longterm increase is not the same as the cause of the seasonal cycle. The draw down in seasonal CO2 is caused by plants uptaking more CO2. The longterm increase is caused by humans injecting CO2 into the system. If humans stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere it does not imply that plants will suddenly go into some hyper mode where they draw it all down in months (and where's it going to go?)
"Simple control systems theory. The model makers need to go back to the drawing board to find where that 'decades' aphorism came from."
Sure and the experts are utterly clueless. Fortunately some guy on a forum on the internet knows better. How arrogant.
Re: Global Cooling
"What 9/11 did do (on 9/12) was ground all US flights, allowing researchers to find out exactly what the effect of a no contrail sky would be, something they had viewed as impossible to get approval for."
So you are saying 9/11 was actually perpetrated by researchers who had become frustrated they couldn't get approval to ground planes.
Re: Interesting, but of little consequence
A few years back NASA demonstrated that without the warming from CO2 the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapor. So as Boltar says, it's CO2 that controls the greenhouse effect with water vapor acting as an amplifier.
Re: AGW - Proof of AGW was DGW, dinosauric global warming.
Are you serious? Your rose tinted view of the Jurassic completely overlooks the fact that dinosaurs are huge carnivores and would kill people.
the industry is inherently sexist