13 posts • joined 30 Oct 2012
Rumours of the death of Moore's Law have been around since Gordon himself said that it wouldn't be possible to design a chip with more than a quarter-million transistors. We're at several billion and counting, and I fearlessly predict that single-digit nanometre technology is not far off. IBM and others have been building switches atom-by-atom for several years now.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, elevated CO2 and temperature are causing stunning increases in vegetative growth and hence carbon sequestration, see, e.g: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/reviving-red-spruce (the fact that so-called "scientists" are surprised by this and looking for the cause beggars belief: perhaps somebody should explain to them why people build greenhouses and commercial growers pump CO2 into them).
"“I believe the odds are that we can expect as a result of global warming to see more of this pattern of extreme cold." What sort of a scientist would say, "I believe . . .". AGW a cult, not science. Incidentally, the planet quit warming in 1997 and the record shows no increase in extreme weather events for the past 100 years.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
A close inspection of the chart above illustrates that while CO2 has rocket, warming came to an abrupt halt in 1997. Oh, and BTW, the governments own weather data show NO statistically significant increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events over the past 100 years (the AGW alarmists are deliberately using the increased cost of such events due to there being more of everything to be damaged to mask this inconvenient truth).
I'm confused. Although far from being an astro- (or any other kind of) physicist, it's unclear to me why Black Holes must collide. I can understand that when galaxies collide the black holes at there centers compete for the resulting mess, er mass. But why must they combine? Wouldn't the additional fuel be sufficient to cause a wave?
Shame on you! Planet: a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.
No star, no planet.
Congrats on a typically clever headline!
Anther mind-bogglingly irrelevant piece of pseudo-science (note the use of "may"). Here's a documented, as opposed to hypothetical, bee problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/science/earth/soaring-bee-deaths-in-2012-sound-alarm-on-malady.html?pagewanted=all.
Could we have a moratorium on "anthropomorphic emissions (might) cause you-name-it" reports please?
"Boffins used thousands of kilometres of airborne radar data collected by NASA"??
Not to mention the fact that, oops, not only has the planet not warmed since 1997 but actually appears to be cooling despite a 35% increase in the anthropomorphic contribution to atmospheric CO2. LOL
"That's too narrow a view, argues Seager. "If there is one important lesson from exoplanets, it is that anything is possible within the laws of physics and chemistry," she writes." I'd have more confidence if she had written, "If there is one important lesson from exoplanets, it is that anything is possible within the laws of physics and chemistry is possible".
And what about that threat of havoc: an almost 10% rise in CO2 since 1996 and zero warming? How empty is that threat?
Best headline of the year!!!!
Doesn't make sense
If we might return to the subject of the article for a moment, the shape of the Lake suggests that the amplitude of the wave would increase, rather than decrease, between Lucerne and Geneva. If the source of the tsunami is correct, the amplitudes are wrong (reversed?).