96 posts • joined 25 Apr 2012
Re: Tax attacks
There is a published, peer-reviewed paper that examines the impact of temperture change and CO2 sensitivity on crops. This is their result:
No temp change + no CO2 change = unchanged crop yields (baseline)
No temp change + increased CO2 = much higher crop yields
Higher temps + increased CO2 = unchanged to higher crop yields
Higher temps + no CO2 change = reduced crop yields
So, what will the result be if we reduce the CO2, and the higher temps have actually been caused by other natural variations (e.g., El Ninos)? Potentially, mass starvation due to declining crop yields.
Just be aware that there are serious consequences if any part of the AGW theory is wrong and we take action based on it.
Re: No Surprise
Let me see if I understand your claim. You can predict with 90% accuracy what next year's global temps SHOULD be based on CO2, EXCEPT for the contribution of two natural variables which cannot be predicted, only examined in hindsight. So you CANNOT predict what next year's temps will be, only offer up an excuse next year as to why reality did not meet expectations.
You have created a non-falsifiable theory with an on-going ability to apply whatever fudge-factor is required to make reality conform to your theory. That is not science and is totally useless. Given all the natural variations that impact climate, Mankind may never see the rise in temperature predicted by amplified CO2 warming as described by global warming scientists, even if such a thing does exist.
Re: @Crazy guy
Data of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.
Now before you start in on another theory of how energy is still being added to the system, please explain how atmospheric CO2 can do add energy other than by warming the atmosphere. What energy transport mechanism is there between GHGs and earth/water other than heat?
I didn't read past the assertion that Antarctica was grower warmer at a slower rate, and the term "denier".
Antarctica has had a trend-rate of NEGATIVE 0.014 degrees K per decade for over thirty years. I guess negative warming is slower warming in AGW-speak. ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
The only denier here is the author, who is denying the clear data of observational science in favor of theories and models unsupported by real-world data.
Re: Deiberately missing the point???
You, like most who denigrate the 1%, do not realize the enormous difference between the vastly rich and the rich. I do not know the UK figures, but here are the US's: 1% translates to well over 3 million people. To join that club, one needs net assets of $1.3 million (about a million pounds). MOST of the people in that group are precisely the ones you say cannot get there - those who earn the equivalent of 100k pounds a year who worked and saved for decades. Besides working all those years, they have invested much of the fruits of their labors into the economy, creating more jobs and more wealth for everyone.
When you disparage the 1% because a very few of them are super-wealthy (by birth or otherwise), you disparage the very people who keep our civilization from collapsing.
Have you disconnected from the grid? No, you're posting on the net. Do you drive a car, heat your house, grow your own food, wear clothes only from natural fibers, given up flying, auto, bus, and train travel? I doubt it. You don't want to change your own "dangerous behavior." All you want is to raise money to pay your salary at your non-profit.
You cannot prove global warming by regional warming, especially when the temp over the rest of the world is sufficiently cooler than the average over the last ten years as to negate all the regional warming in the Arctic. Global temps have not risen in the last 14 to 17 years, depending on the data source you use. The world has wised up to your fraudulant scare tactics.
Re: Best. Comment. Ever
The shame is your ignorance of the volumes and volumes of research showing that atmospheric CO2, the foundation of AGW theory, is not affecting the climate.
'Redneck' suggests a rural area where these would not be practical (subscriber and business too far away). Change your slur to one describing an inner-city dweller and you may have a point.
Good lord, people. First of all, no one is going to be firing weapons in an urban environment (except in Detroit and Chicago!). Fire one in my neighborhood and the police would be here in short order to haul you away.
There is no reason for drones to fly over pivate property, when they could easily be programmed to fly over public roads until they reach their destination. Most objections vanish with that alone. A cellphone sending video back to the drone's user would provide an easy measure of security.
No, Amazon doesn't have warehouses suitable or using drones, but expand your thinking. These would be great for pizza delivery. Drug stores could deliver to home-bound customers (ok, make it illegal to transport narcotics this way). Even WalMart has the potential to deliver goods this way. There are uses for drones, and they are not expensive - so they will be tried. IMO, they will succeed for some applications.
Re: IPCC blaming heretics again?
Sigh. There has been no increase in temps in 17 years. Greenland's ice sheets are not melting as fast as feared (rtfa) and recent research indicates that what has been melting is primarily due to geothermal activity. The decrease in Arctic ice has been more than off-set by a growth of Antarctic ice - the total global ice is exactly the thirty-year average.
The carbon dioxide we pump into the air is plant food. When photsynthesizing organisms evolved CO2 made up 20% of the atmosphere. When dinosaurs roamed, it was 5%. Today, it is less than 0.04%. If it falls under 0.02%, plants cannot phytosynthesize, and virtually all life on Earth ends. Even at today's levels, C3 crops like wheat stop growing in the afternoon in the UK on warm growing days due to localized shortages of CO2.
If you want to give up oil, go for it. But you have to give up your car, most of the clothes you wear, most foods you eat, and most definitely all your electric toys, since all of them are made, produced, or grown using proucts derived from oil. You would need to move into a cave (naked) and eat grubs to survive. Think I'll take a pass on following your lead.
More money, please
Well, since Mother Nature won't cooperate with the "Earth's gonna fry" scare, NASA has to find a new way to generate research funding (i.e., a way to fund their paychecks). So they just returned to the tried and true Chicken Little scare - the sky is falling.
Man's had a good run. Something's going to take us out. At least a huge meteor or astroid would be quick and painless. Life is short, anyway. Have another drink.
What this shows is that even the simplest sounding experiment is fraught with possible sources of error, and can be done many different ways. For the first run, I would take a glass beaker, pour distiiled, room temperature water in it, place an RF thermometer in it, record the temp, put it in the freezer and time how long it took for the thermometer to signal it was 0 degrees C. For the second run, I would then let the water thaw, microwave it for one minute, put the thermometer back in, record the temp, then put it in the freezer and time how long it took to reach the initial temp of the first run, and how long it took from that point to another zero reading.
So I would be using the same water, container, thermometer, and freezer for both runs. This would eliminate any variability you might otherwise get using two separate water samples and containers, and determining when the ice started forming.
No doubt you can find a loose variable in my methodology as well, but controlling all the variables is very different, and why different results are often obtained for any given reasearch.
I don't give a rap who supports what. The fact that Mussolini dictated that trains run on schedule does not diminish the value of trains running on time.
The data over th last seventeen years show that all the CO2 we've dumped into the air has not resulted in warmer temperatures. The climate changes - it always has - and we really have no clue as to why or how.
Re: Several problems with that study
Do you have a problem with the dozens of peer-reviewed studies documenting the evidence of a medieval warm period at numerous places all over the globe? You will find that the 'consensus' is that it was a global event.
Re: While @LarsG
What is the field of expertise of the author of this paper, is it paleontology, geology, glaciers, or climate? The problem with climate is that it requires an understanding of many fields of science, denying anyone from being a true 'expert'. A climatologist could spend an entire career going down one path - say the physics of gases - believing his field best explained climate changes, while the true driver of climate was intergalactic cosmic rays, a subject completely foreign to him. The probability is, that in this fiield, everybody is right about something, but no one is right about enough things for climate to be understood. Climate quite possibly the sum of everything possible - from cosmic rays to volcanoes to ocean cycles, with the final result depending on the relative strengths of many, many variables at any given time.
Re: greenies are wrong about almost everything
Go ahead, make energy expensive. Then you really will be watching your children die.
Re: greenies are wrong about almost everything
No need for air conditioning in Australia? Lucky you. You'll never cool a house with a 12 volt system.
Re: It must be us!
Nonsense. A hypothesis with no supporting evidence is not accepted even if no other alternative is proposed. In this specific case, no one can explain why, if the assumption of CO2 warming is valid, temps have failed to go up over the last 16 years. We can discard the climate models because they have been proven to be wrong, despite having no alternative models.
And the money spent promoting AGW dwarfs anything spent questioning it. The evil-oil company meme has grown tiresome. They are energy companies and will be selling us energy in whatever form produces the most profit. The money that started East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a main proponent of AGW, came from Shell and other energy companies.
I've read the paper. Genrally, Miller has turned out some pretty good research, but this one is very sloppy. He even refers to Baffin Island as being east of Greenland (it's to the west). Temps could have been warmer in the past but not for a period long enough to sufficiently melt the glacier to expose the moss. At the very least he should have included a minimum time period of warmth (if the past were warmer it was for a time period less than that required to melt ice 70 meters thick). He over ran his headlights on this one. Maybe he isn't monitoring the work of his grad students enough.
One more thing....
They may have lived thousands of years ago, but they are registered as Democrats and still vote.
Hate to tell you, but latest research proved Neanderthal DNA is found in every human outside of the sub-Sahara. But don't dispair, research also shows Neanderthals had larger craniums.
We must have been following the same research. I used a 0.5 mw HeNe laser to do the same thing (modulated it with the audio output of a radio) back in 1970. Analog signal back then, of course. I don't see any breakthroughs with this application.
IF there are gravitational waves, their propagation peed through space must be instantaneous, and will modify the "nothing travels faster than light" rule.
Consider this: let's assume that earth is at a point in its ellipticl orbit where it is getting cliser to the sun (approaching winter in the northern hemisphere). Further, let us assume rhe existence of gravity waves travelling at some speed y. That would mean the gravitational force keeping earth in orbit left the sun some time in the past (since it takes time for the wave to reach earth). However, each subsequent wave arrives faster than the previous wave, by virtue of the distance between the sun and earth growing smaller. Add to that the logical fact that each wave is attracting earth to where the Sun WAS when the wave left, not where the sun IS when the wave reaches earth. Earth will be trying to orbit a point 'behind' the sun, with the perturbation growing daily as the earth approaches the sun. This would result in an orbital death spiral unless the wave travelled at infinite speed through space.
Studies of planetary orbits show conclusively that they orbit around the instantaneous location of the center of mass, not some past location of the mass. For something we experience daily, and can make predictions about with great accuracy, we know little about just what - and why - gravity is.
Re: Who really owns the seal?
So why are there so many parodies of the Presidential Seal? The US does not copyright or trademark itself. Look it up.
Re: Who really owns the seal?
You are correct. The gov can pass laws making it illegal to create look-alike items intended to deceive people into thinking something's official - like impersonating a police officer or a realistic but fake letter from the IRS, but that can't ban the production of something based on intellectual property rights. If the law attempts to do that it would never stand up in court. I suspect in this case it's illegal to reproduce the seal if the intent is to mislead or confuse, and perhaps the reporting is off (not unusual!).
You can also freely reproduce ANY government document available to the public without fear of copyright infringement. The gov. can't copyright anything, either. As you said, everything already belongs to the taxpayer.
Re: data is a plural word
I find the origin of words to be quite entertaining. If I were to ever write a book on the subject, the title would be, "Where's the Corn in My Corned Beef?" (it would puzzle a yank. Not sure about a Brit.) The supposed origin of 'pumpernickel' is my favorite.
I think it's headed for an illegal alien rally.
Re: This is why I love Science!
Observational science is still science. There has been an astounding number of facts and principles developed through observing how planetary objects, moons, suns, and galaxies interact with each other. Even an element was discovered through astronomy (helium). To dismiss astronomy and other observational fields because you can't do hands-on experiments is myopic. You can't 'touch' climatology or evolution, either, yet they are still science.
As a grad student I had the great honor (to me, anyway. It was a chore to other grads.) to teach an astronomy lab to undergrads. We had a small student observatory with a good size (30"?) scope to use. Saturn was within view during class hours, so obviously, I spent one class having the students look at it, and a discussion of it. One co-ed stared at Saturn through the scope and came away on the verge of shock. She said she had of course read about the planet, and seen pictures of it, but had never honestly realized that it was actually in the sky right above her. She was just in awe. I clumsily tried to explain that that was what science, all science, was about; trying to explain the world - universe that we live in, that's all around us.
I can't recall how she did in the course, at least a grade of B, I think, but it made all the effort required to teach the course worthwhile to see one student so profoundly moved by what she learned in that one lesson.
Oh, great. Yet another porous border for illegal aliens to gain entry...
Re: Pioneer probes also provided some earlier data...
Believe it or not, if it took gravity any time to reach us, the earth would be orbiting where the sun WAS when the gravity left the sun. Regardless of the time involved, the result would be an unsustainable orbit. We would spiral into the sun or off into space. Every appropriate experiment shows that earth's orbit is around where the sun really is. So you have a choice, either gravity is instantaneous, or gravity as a 'thing' doesn't exist, but is actually a curvature of space caused by mass -as postulated by Einstein. Or maybe something even stranger...
Over my rather longish life, I have seen a steady decline in those professing to be religious or spiritual, and an opposite increase in the rudeness, crudeness, and coarseness in society. I believe the two are directly related. Perhaps Mankind engaging in hope of a significant reason for existence is a good thing. At the very least, perhaps we should not ridicule it. We already have enough selfish behavior.
They will also find a correlation between droughts and cold leading to conflict. Both of those conditions historically have led to crop failures and food shortages, which in turn lead to conflicts. That's one of the main problems with the chicken-little global warming scare: cold kills more than warmth. Drought causes more suffering than heavy rains. Life thrives in a warm, wet world and suffers in a cold, arid one. Consider this: how many mass extinctions have been tied to ice age? How many to 'warm' ages?
Cold,bad. Warm, good. Gore, idiot.
Aw, c'mon. Don't you think Al Gore could have totally skewed the results all by himself? Look at him. He's the size of a small country. His methane emissions must be creating more climate change than a city.
There are more things in our heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies
I am not particularly religious and I have a strong background in science (masters, physics and astronomy) Mutations and evolutionary changes quite obviously take place, but something else is going on, too. What, I cannot say.
Most of you are probably familiar with what a keystone arch is. Neither side of the arch can stand on its own until the top keystone is in place, but that stone must be placed last. Until then, the sides must be externally supported by braces.
There are too many organic processes that resemble that analysis, from the human immune system to the life cycle of tapeworms. In the human immune system, a multitude of mutations would be required, in the correct sequence, none of which would provide any benefit to the organism until the complete system was developed. Random mutations like that would be like individual stones in an avalanche landing to form a keystone arch (please don't enlighten me with the fact that there are natural arches - they are usually formed from a single stone and none are keystone arches).
As I said, I am not particularly religious, but the theory of evolution does not come close to explaining how things came to be. Something else is going on. There is much left to discover.
Re: Scientific research is shit
It's not the research that's deserving of derision, it's the reportage. If articles said," hey, look at this intersting bit of research," it would be fine. Instead, all research represents a 'breakthough' (including this one); one that seldom if ever happens. After a while, it becomes tedious and disappointing. Writers know that words like breakthrough mean something to people, and when they use them so cavalierly, people are going to weary of such constant disappointment.
Re: A better formula that makes more sense to me....
If you increase the amount of forested land, you absorb more greenhouse gas until the forest is mature and no longer has a net growth. At that point it maintains the additional amount of greenhouse gases absorbed
but does not increase it.
Re: The debate
Just to add to your excellent pot: during past eras both temps and CO2 have been at much higher levels (when dinosaurs roamed, 5.0% of the atmosphere was CO2; today it's .04%.). What was the climate's impact on life? It thrived and diversity of life increased. What caused mass extinctions in Earth's history? Ice Ages. So why are we agonizing over global warming? It's global cooling that should scare the wits out of us.
There is no place on Earth to hot for a diversity of life. There are many places too cold.
Re: Nice idea but...
Sceptics say the temps haven't risen for the last 16 years, but that over the long term they have risen since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1850s. The significance is, a hiatus in the rise of temps is to be expected if natural variables determine the climate, but is not possible if, according to the climate models, the climate is being driven by manmade CO2 emissions. Clearly the madels have been proven wrong by the reality of the pause in warming.
Don't know about the UK, but residential mailboxes in the US are on the street. If you have outgoing mail, you raise a little flag on them to alert the mail deliverer. If you want to safely post something anonomously, just wait until you see a mail carrier, get ahead of him a bit, pop your letter in someone else's mailbox, and raise the flag. The homeowner won't have time to notice; chances of being on camera is small; when the letter was put in the box would be questionable back to theprevious delivery.
Good start. Take it up a notch. Have both the temps and CO2 levels been higher in the past? Yes, both have been much higher. What was the effect on life? It thrived and became more diverse. Has the earth had lower levels of temps and CO2? Yes. What was the effect? Mass extinctions.
We're worried about the wrong thing. We are worried about CO2 levels of .04%. It was 5% when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Higher levels of temps and/or CO2 is simply not a problem, regardless of what raises those levels
Re: @Sorry that handle is already taken.
Popular misconception. Our best dating techniques can only give a window in which a change took place, but the time it took for the change could be any period, a second or a thousand years, as long as it fits within that window. That is mainly due to the uncertainty range of our dating methods. If we say the temps warmed up between thirty and fifty thousand years ago, it only means it didn't happen further back that fifty thousand years, and no sooner than thirty thousand. The event itself could be overnight. I saw Bill Nye handed his head by a scientist on live TV for not understanding that.
Re: but... but...
Temps 'cooler' form 1991-1995, flat from 1996-2012, but given the inability for the average person to grasp simple math concepts few will understand this in the face of propaganda claiming it's been getting warmer.
You could take any 10-year period from 1996 on and there is no statistical difference in the average temps. Of course, since only specific decades, e.g, 1991-2000, 2001-2010, they can hide the decade and a half of flat temps for at least another seven years.
Additionally, the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1850s, each decade SHOULD be warmer than the last. The time to worry is when temps start going down. Finally, I notice the article says the report gave the numbers of people who died from hot weather and cold weather, but didn't bother saying what those numbers were. Could it be because more die from cold than heat?
How many mass extinctions have been recorded due to the much warmer temps in Earth's history? How many due to ice ages? Cold is bad; warm is good. If you want to follow a precautionary road, develop seek and destroy plans for earth-threatening asteroids, and how to prevent ice ages (massive dumps of CO2 in the atmosphere?). Those are the events that would cause mass extinctions. Global warming? Not a problem, regardless of what would cause it.
Re: When did climate change start then?
The rise in temps caused directly by CO2 as indicated by its absorption bands and thermodynamics is approximately two-thirds of a degree C. Positive feedback is required to create the rise you quote. Those feedback mechanisms are poorly understood, with some (like the effect of cloud coverage) completely ignored for lack of understanding. The reality of the last SEVENTEEN YEARS proves that the modelling of the feedback is grossly exaggerating any additional increase in temps. Only the scare is anmade, not climate cange.
Well, the basic problem is that there are three different groups 'taking the temperature' of the earth; the one using a scattering of ground-based sensors and two independent satellite monitoring systems (RSS and MSU). The ground-based systems do indeed show an unusually hot summrr in Australia for the period in question. Unfortunately, neither of the satellite systems do. They both show that temps were well within the typical range. So there is only a 1 in 3 chance that there was any unusually hot weather to begin with. Correcting this 'oversight' means the real likelihood that Man is resonsible for higher temps is 90% of one-third, or less than 30%.
But that wouldn't produce the results they wanted.
Do some good
Just a suggestion if it hasn't already been made:
The state of Texas also had a problem with a deer population that got out of hand. The state gave out the normal hunting permits - you could hunt enough deer to feed your family for the year - then they issued special permits to hunt more, but with one requirement: the deer meat had to be handed over to the state. It was then used to supplement the free food available for those who lived below the poverty level. Everyone was happy, and the save-the-deer nuts were hard pressed to say the poor shouldn't have meat.
Then too, handled correctly you could likely spare the lives of a lot of horses......
Then what happens when there's an overpopulation of wolves? Man is at the top of the food chain, but we've almost ceased in playing our role in nature.
Why these studies are to be ignored
"The upshot of all this is that '3.3 per cent of deaths could be prevented if all participants had a processed meat consumption of less than 20g per day.'"
No, deaths are not prevented. At best they are merely postponed, unless they are claiming this is the way to immortality. So before we can make a rational decision about our lifestyle, we need to know just HOW LONG giving up such pleasures as eating red meat, bacon, etc. will extend our lives. I for one don't want to give up everything that makes life enjoyable to avoid a heart attack only to die from liver failure an hour later.
So, researchers, since I don't smoke, am not overweight, don't drink more that two drinks a day, take no drugs (legal or otherwise), have low blood pressure, and am in excellent health at age 63 (despite having enjoyed red and processed meats in my diet), just how much longer would I live if I gave up meat? I bet the answer is in terms of hours, not even days or weeks.
One more question for the researchers: have THEY given up red meat and processed meat? Didn't think so. So stop trying to drum up more research money by worrying all of us. Get a real job.
Re: And when it all gets hacked...
But hasn't government shown us it is completely competent to overcome these issues? Look at how well it manages all of their existing programmes and functions.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Video of US journalist 'beheading' pulled from social media
- Microsoft refuses to confirm 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- The Register to boldly go where no Vulture has gone before: The WEEKEND