Last time I looked (about a year ago) Norwegian Air was offering free wifi...
366 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
I think putting windows on it kinda misses the point.
The pi is their to encourage geekiness not swell the number of people who can use a WIMP to launch applications.
Which does lead me to wonder how many of the 5m are sitting on shelf somewhere because it's too much effort to make it 'do something'
It is very important to ask the people what they are thinking. This will steer the politicians to enact policies which are democratic. That is, reflect the will of the people. There are a lot of people out there who would love to subvert this, I'm not one of them.
Unfortunately the scientists have lost credibility. That's why no one is listening any more.
I'm sure there are people doing good work in this area but unfortunately they are drowned out by the vocal few who keep telling us it is the end of the world. Well we've been listening to that for 30 years and it is getting a bit stale.
Global temperature is not behaving as predicted
Global sea ice is not doing too badly
We haven't seen mass extinctions (a snail that miraculously did a regeneration from nothing as I recall)
The climate refugees seem to be staying put
The planet is actually getting greener
Crop yields are looking good, they'd look better if we weren't turning food into biofuel
Gav and his mates would have got away with the '2014 hottest year ever' guff 50 years ago. It is largely the work of public opinion that brought to the fore the admission that there is a 72% uncertainty to the claim and that difference was well within the error bars.
So aiden, given these failures who do you think should make the decisions for you and yours? I think it should be you. Not a scientist with tenure to protect on the other side of the world.
Of course policy makers should listen, but listen critically. Which is in their heart of hearts is what they do. Sure they will turn up to climate conferences and make promises they have no intention of keeping but that's part of the job description.
Ultimately if you want to sit in the dark, waiting for the wind to blow, that's your choice, but not one you should force on me and mine.
Re: Satellites say no.
The term medium certainty was discussed in the climategate emails and it was decided the lower threshold should be 34%.
I have offered anyone who accepts this a little wager. If you are medium certain that a dice will come up 1 or 2 we can play a game:
Every roll that comes up 1 or 2 I will give you £1.30 (because 34% is more than 33% I'm giving you odds)
Every roll that comes up 3,4,5 or 6 you give me £1.00
After we have done 20 rolls you can decide to stop or continue. I'm happy to play until your money runs out.
Satellites say no.
The elephant in the room is that neither UAH or RSS is claiming hottest year ever.
I wonder why we put them up there if their data is less reliable than the ground stations.
And it now turns out that there is a 38% certainty on the hottest year ever based on adjusted land station claims...that should have at least been used to caveat the press release rather than having prised out a 2 weeks later.
Re: "a tool Microsoft uses to hide its source code from being copied"
"Are you seriously suggesting all databases can be replaced with text files?"
No one said that.
But I'm suggesting the registry could. It's a list of parameters. Show me anything that needs relational integrity or any other database type feature.
It's always been a buttpain. It doesn't get cleaned up properly unless you use 3rd party tools so it bloats.
And the fact that running code from it is even allowed is a serious enough flaw that it should be deprecated, locked from further use and left to die.
Re: No Surprise
I think you may have fudged some numbers...
6,000ppm is no where near as lethal as you have suggested.
You need to get to 20,000ppm before the effects are apparent.
80,000 to 150,000ppm before there is a danger of death.
(1% is 10,000ppm)
(% in air)
2-3 Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.
Re: No Surprise
I'm glad you proper scientists know the heat is in the oceans.
The Met Office in its paper Implications for Predictions says:
"whilst the second report suggests that the recent pause in surface warming may, in part, be due to internal variability in the oceans and how heat is taken up below the ocean surface."
I guess the "may" and "in part" were put in there to instil some confidence?
We'd better start spending the money on adapting...
...instead of more modelling exercises.
40 years of action on global warming and the only effect has been raised taxation, more expensive fuel and a few people getting rich in the carbon credits market. CO2 continues to rise.
Renewables and energy storage still hasn't advanced in efficiency and looks to me like a busted flush.
Radical I know but if the science is settled and you must be mad to deny the catastrophe, and the absence of any way to mitigate world hydrocarbon use, further research into causes and effects is futile. 97%* of people who know about it are 95%** certain so let's take their funding and start building sea walls, irrigation/drainage schemes, desalination plants, nuclear power stations before it is too late.
Footnote: I have a couple of surefire investment opportunities. A citrus farm in Sussex and a vineyard in Lapland. DM me for my paypal details if you want to chip in...
**I know about this too
Here's a suggestion...
...solve today's problems today. Today's energy problems are fuel poverty and the real risk that the lights will start going out because we have an impending energy gap.
Whatever fiddling around with spreadsheets you want to do the uncertainties are too great. It's open to both halves of the debate to change a number here or there to make the answer support their arguments. And why they are all arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the opportunity to address some real problems are passing us by.
Our descendants will have a better chance of dealing with there problems if they inherit a strong infrastructure and economy. If all the effort that was going into fiddling around with mitigations for a disaster that might not happen had gone into research into, for instance, new ways of using the limited hydrocarbon resources we have we would be in a better position in 100 years.
It is depressing that this is not going to happen. It seems everyone but Eastern Bloc and China are prepared to sacrifice their futures to the opportunity to keep the populace in fear and dependency.
BTW, the first person who says 'consensus' loses the argument, K?
I lead a foraging day for the local food festival...
...at the end the general consensus is:
* that leaves taste like leaves
* that you need an awful lot of leaves to satisfy you
* vegetable protein is almost impossible to find for most of the year
There is a reason that non agrarian civilisations were all meat eaters.
Whatever the cause...
... it looks like an accident waiting to happen
The 1938 hurricane would have had a bigger impact had it hit the Boroughs. And there are a lot more waterfront properties than there were then.
One thing is for sure sides of the argument will seize on this as using selective quotes to prove that is was/was not CO2 that caused it.
Note that I did not say climate change. The climate changes and it is definitely affected by people. The question in my mind is how the changes can be attributed to CO2 and the cost of the precautionary principle.