World Bank? Yeah, the money sector is where I go for my daily weather too... LMAO!
40 posts • joined 28 Dec 2010
Re: I agree
"Have you tried graphing it and comparing it? There's no significant difference between NASA's data 20 years ago and the same data today, except of course that there is 20 additional years of data."
20 years isn't climate, it's weather. The Weather Service has data going back to the 1800s and the older data has been manipulated several times over the last decade. Note: I'm referring to the historically climate network not satellite data which does not show warming.
What is really interesting is that people will go on-line now and pull down the currently posted data and assume it has remained the same since it was put on-line. It should but it hasn't. NASA is applying corrections retroactively to archived. In my mine this is intellectually questionable.
This is more likely a weather pattern, even 30 years would sill more likely be weather and not climate. From the raging climate debate, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on the dividing line between weather and climate (if there is any.) Until the Climate Science field can get away from popular science and to something approaching the rigor of the physical sciences there is no reason to use it for the foundations of decisions that can cost trillions of dollars and lower the standards of living for the entire globe.
Note: It's also fairly easy to get the results you want when the data are being adjusted periodically so that the older data shows lower temperatures than were actually recorded years ago. (We know this is being done because old written records do not match the data online with NASA.) The adjustment of online versions of archived temperatures without explanation makes newer charts useless for scientific purposes but perfect for political purposes.
Re: Cost of AGW
This brings up so many issues...
1) How long has that type of bamboo existed? 1000 years? 10000 years? Longer?
2) Is the range for that bamboo growing or shrinking and what controls that range?
3) Has anyone attempted to create a new variety of bamboo that pandas will eat? Or does the change to the bamboo violate the intent of the conservationists?
1) How long have the pandas dependent on this variety of bamboo been around?
2) Were the pandas ever independent of that variety of bamboo?
3) Has anyone even attempted to breed a variety of panda that will eat more than one variety of bamboo?
It appears that the starting point for this issue is whether you start from the idea that you have to maintain the status quo (the bamboo and pandas as-is) or to evolve the species (bamboo and/or pandas) to ensure their future survival.
Re: Why do eco-catatrophists always assume the planet is so fragile ?
You ask "Why do eco-catatrophists always assume the planet is so fragile ? "
The simple answer is "Because that is were the money is." You have to have a urgent cause to draw in money to groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or IPCC. Otherwise they go away and all those 'activists' have to work for a living.
Re: "Motorola won a ban on Xboxes that ended up blocked by a US court"
The only thing I can see being done is for M$ to ship the boxes to Germany. Which then seizes them. The question then becomes, what will be done with the Xboxes:
1) Destroy them at customs?
2) Put them in customs storage? (If so, at who's cost?)
3) Send them back to M$ in the USA?
Re: 4,000 years worth of supercomputer simulations
I concur, unless you can prove the simulation is formally correct, uses the correct numbering (fixed/float/etc.), and has valid input data the results are GIGO (garbage-in/garbage-out or garbage-in/gospel-out.) That iss on top of it being an 'initial value problem' where the chosen initial values (including the date I'd think) may change the final results.
I don't think any climate model has ever been submitted to formal analysis nor do I think the people does those models know what formal methods are (in the computer science sense.)
You would find it hard to justify your view of the modern battlefield by looking at the mix of equipment provided. The idea that a battleground can exist that is foot or armor only is mind boggling. Even Afghanistan has armor (in the form of aircraft more than tanks.)
In Iraq the armor (including APCs) provided mobility and ,for lack of a better term, do-it-yourself fortresses. The problem with that is the enormous support structure required to keep those forces supplied in the field. The modern battle tank is equivalent to WWII tank company and takes even more resources to support.
The antitank missiles these days, you are more likely thinking of RPGs and IEDs are more of a threat to the APCs and soft skinned vehicles. Which is where you see them being used. Those weapons have caused the development, again, of new vehicles to get troops in relative safely to and from combat. But unless your willing to pound every square foot of ground to a depth of 6 or 10 feet how do you make it safe for the troops?
If you can pound it, will the politicians accept the cost? The US lost Vietnam, it didn't loose it by the lack of dollars spent. The same goes for Korea and Somalia. It will probably be true for Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is IMHO no good solution. The politicians do what they want for the reasons they want and the rest of us have to dance to their tune.
Re: Why would anyone trust a British satellite expert?
A I recall from my biochemistry (MANY moons ago) silicon analogs for DNA becomes more and more unstable the longer the chains become (if you try to replace carbon with silicon.) That restricts the versatility of silicon in extremely large molecules (but then the human DNA appears to have a large amount of redundancy built into it) so the biochemistry would have to be seen before we could explore it.
Data based science?
"Instead of relying upon data-based science that indicates increasing rates of sea-level rise"
Actually, those legislators are basing their finding on observed facts instead of computer models. It's funny that the people making the claim for the extreme rise don't mention that there are no physical facts supporting their forecast.
If wind and solar cost around 5 to 10 times coal based power, and the future is 50% wind and solar, how much is the rest going to cost in order to keep the overall cost down in the same price range and coal based power?
Or do the calculations include a ramp up in the price of fossil fuels due to artificial scarcity caused by eco-regulation?
Re: Never worked out what the hardcore 'denier's were smoking...
Maybe we should call the proponents of AGW "deniers". They deny historical data and physical data (unless it's been "adjusted" like the online NCDC data not matching the printed records.)
Plain and simple, the warming crowd uses techniques that they would crucify their opponents for using.
Boycott the companies funding the WWF
You have to wonder if WWF, like Greanpeace, blackmail companies in to donating to a cause that, frankly, wants to put them out of business.
If we all boycott the companies that donate money and land to these eco-terrorists (or put them on their board of directors like some of the oil companies) maybe we can break the power of these groups.
What is not addressed here is the basic questions:
1) how long has the ocean been giving of methane? 10 years, 20 years, 10,000 years, longer?
2) has the rate changed and, if it has, due to what cause(s)?
If the ocean has always (some suitable length of time) been giving off methane and if the rate is constant (or varies based on some input humans have no influence on) then this paper is simply telling us about something "natural" that we can not do anything (intelligent) about.
But warming leads CO2 concentration, so...
Since the increase in temperatures lead the increases in CO2 concentrations by several hundred to a thousand years you have to wonder how CO2 concentrations force the end of the ice age.
It also begs the question how an ice age can start while the CO2 concentrations are higher.
Unless they have cause and effect reversed.
Re: I've never understood...
Define CO2 rich environment:
"CO2 is a simple asphyxiant and lethal asphyxiations have been reported at concentrations as low as 110,000 ppm (Hamilton and Hardy 1974). "
US submarines have run between 7000ppm and 14000ppm (thought they try to keep it below 10000ppm.) So human life would continue unaffected if the atmosphere was 1% CO2.
Re: I've never understood...
Bleaching of coral, by the latest reports, is due to bacterial and/or viral causes (http://www.pml.ac.uk/media/news_archive/virus_causes_coral_bleaching.aspx.) Not CO2 levels.
Coral came in to exist during the Cambrian. A period when the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were around 20 times higher than they currently are
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/paintimage1136.png) so its hard to understand how minor changes now could have such dramatic effects.
Proving your hypothesis using your own data?
Hansen authored a paper predicting an increase in global temperatures. Whether the temperatures have risen or not, do you think it is proper to use Hansen's data (from GISS) to prove Hansen's hypothesis?
Doesn't the proof need to come from somewhere else? Like UAH or RSS?
"MDIS images show that all the radar-bright features near Mercury's south pole are located in areas of permanent shadow, and near Mercury's north pole such deposits are also seen only in shadowed regions, results consistent with the water-ice hypothesis."
Do they have any spectral data? For all we know this could be something with a higher melting point (and density) than water that has condensed in these shadows.
Gatekeeper, back from the dead?
Gatekeeper was the name of a freeware (or shareware) antivirus application for the Mac back in the mid to late 1980s. It was a little difficult to setup because you had to authorize individual applications to create executable files (or else your downloads would not be executable) but it was capable of blocking viruses and trojans that were brand new.
Exceeding the positional accuracy of the GPS system?
The way I understand the enhanced GPS measurement techniques, the horizontal precision ranges from 3cm to 10cm. Altitude is less accurate than the longitude-latitude. Also the farther North you go the less precise your measurements.
How does the report claim a 2cm change when the error on it would be 3cm (or worse)? They would be just as accurate by saying that they had a 0cm +/-3cm change.
What if 90% of the human population died off and the remainder was living in caves or skin tents? Isn't that what the greens want?
How do you "improve the environment"? Where I live we have streams contaminated with lead and mercury. Naturally.
What is "sustainable energy"? Not rare earth magnets in windmills or solar cells using corrosive chemicals.
What is "pollution"? CO2? N2? Organic waste that a different life form thrives on?
No Maunder Minimum
"The 70% enhanced energy striking the planet is ultraviolet radiation, not infrared. It doesn't even reach the ground."
That's the worst kind, all of the energy is absorbed in to the atmosphere and turned in to kinetic energy or re-radiated at lower frequencies (visible and IR.)