Posts by NomNomNom 2280 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Apr 2011
"We know this is being done because old written records do not match the data online with NASA"
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.
When new research finds changes will be greater than previously thought, climate skeptics dismiss it as alarmist. But when new research finds changes will be less than previously thought, climate skeptics accept it and cite it as evidence of prior alarmism. So it's alarmism either way.
Furthermore the self-fulfilling myth that the IPCC is wildly alarmist also requires ignoring cases where the IPCC has underestimated changes. By pretending that the error always works to overestimate changes climate skeptics pretend that it's somehow beyond chance and must be deliberate. You will never find climate skeptics discussing IPCC model based predictions of Arctic Sea Ice which have underestimated the loss for example (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-12.jpg).
dude I think the police know what the road is. I mean they drive around in police cars so they wouldn't get very far in the policing business not knowing what a road is! also with IT security be careful you don't end up wasting police time with your mad ideas. the police are busy trying to catch jimmy savile's henchmen before they strike again they dont have time for IT security. Isnt the security of children more important??
Climate skeptics claiming no warming for 17 years...
The University of East Anglia data they refer to actually shows 0.097C +- 0.113C/decade warming in the past 17 years. So that's a maximum possibility of 0.23C/decade warming (2.3C a century). Yet they claim there's been no warming....
Also why they are trusting the UEA data? Why not the satellite data? That shows 0.121C +- 0.191C/decade warming in the past 17 years. A maximum of 3.1C/century.
Of course to skeptics if the lower range is below zero they can go around claiming there's been no warming. Some of them even bend the truth more and claim it's been cooling.
Even worse they sometimes claim the UEA has "admitted" all this. It hasn't. What they mean is that the conclusion *they* draw from UEA data becomes an admission by the UEA itself.
"I may have exaggerated a bit because I didn't have access to the programme when I made the post."
You didn't just exaggerate. You fabricated and your excuses don't wash. Problem for you is the episode is available on iPlayer. It doesn't remotely support your initial claim. Maybe you thought you could get away with it. You can't.
Now you talk about "subtext". BS he was talking about resource usage and challenges ahead, inc rainforest and overpopulation. All that part with the tribe in the rainforest, you including that? How's that relevant to climate change? He mentioned climate in 5 seconds.
20 minutes you say? I just went and checked the episode on iPlayer and I kid you not he literally says the word climate only once and the moment passes in just 5 seconds.
I guess climate skeptics are so obsessed with silencing the subject of climate change that any brief mention of it is to them is propaganda that ruins a programme. Similar to how creationists can't bear those brief indirect mentions of evolution in nature documentaries.
"The Doran 97% was actually 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’. They selected the 77 out of 3146 respondents to a survey sent to 10,256 people. So they de-selected the vast majority of respondents who didn't give the "right" answers."
No they didn't. They reported that 82% of the 3146 respondents agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming. Then they broke down the respondents into level of expertise, which included the 77 active climate researcher of which 75 agreed.
"Of course, all this assumes that we can influence the CO2 cycle."
That's not an assumption at all. There's overwhelming evidence that we are.
"The natural movements of CO2 are far greater than any human inputs or sinks, and there is really no indication that human activity can alter the concentrations - it is just treated as a matter of faith that stopping human output will leave all other processes working in exactly the same way at a lesser concentration."
The natural movements of CO2 are currently a net sink. Overwhelming evidence that this is because of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being so high. Which means if we stop emitting nature isn't going to suddenly turn into a net source.
"And of course we have the inconvenient truth that concentrations have been rising, giving us better crops, while the temperature has not been doing the same, as the models say it should. This suggests that CO2 concentrations actually do not drive temperature at all....""
Yet temperature has been rising. Temperature rise doesn't have to perfectly track the model predictions for CO2 to be a temperature driver. The weight of evidence is that CO2 is now the dominant driver given how fast we are increasing it.
"The IPCC just lists papers which make a variety of claims and then puts their 'probability' marker on the field. SO they say it is 'possible', 'probable' or 'very probable' that humans are affecting climate."
The papers are what I was referring to.
"Nobody has yet produced real unequivocal proof of AGW"
Proof is for maths. Science isn't restricted to two states, unproven or proven. The theory of evolution doesn't have unequivocal proof either. Something like 99.999% is more than good enough. Even 90% isn't something to sneeze at.
Problem is climate skeptics downplay the certainty and play a "if its not 100% it must be 50/50" game, or even a "if it's not 100% it's 0%" game, eg in the case of warming since 1997: that warming is 90% significant, but because it's not 100% many climate skeptics go around claiming there's been no warming....
"All of the catastrophic forecasts, runaway positive feedbacks, metres-high sea-level rises etc that are supposed to occur because of this warming are based on models that keep getting pwned by reality."
The models have never predicted any of those things.
Although meters high sea-level rise is inevitable given even current temperatures. It's a matter of how long it takes: centuries.
"Please supply a link to a peer-reviewed paper, published in a mainstream science journal, that demonstrates, unequivocally and beyond a shadow of a doubt, a real, attributable, detectable human signature in the Earth's climate."
See the attribution section of IPCC AR4. Plenty of papers linked off that.
Not even the same league table. Remember that wall the USSR built in berlin I went and see it and it is rubbish most of it has fallen down and it was really small much smaller than the wall the chinese built 1000s years ago. So while the USSR were having trouble propping up a small wall the US were landing on the moon. So yeah not the same league tables.
"So you're a climate expert, and have decided that this particular error will turn out to be negligible? "
Odds are that it will turn out to be negligible.
There have been many much bigger fixes to models over past decades, including the addition of entirely new processes and yet the mean result of significant warming from CO2 has remained unchanged.
The CO2 impact is so big that even basic models from 40 years ago were showing significant warming from doubling CO2. Hoping that something in the details of antarctic ice will negate a result so robust seems like wishful thinking.
"selectively grabbing phrases from the story to imply that the ice gain down south was counterbalancing northern ice loss"
The article doesn't imply that. It says: "As the scientists note in their new paper, while the increase is not as big as the decreases seen in Arctic sea ice..."
Well done for pointing out that uncertainty works both ways and that such errors could just as easily mean the models underestimate the warming as overestimate it. There's also the real possibility, and I would argue it's quite likely, that the impact of this particular error on total warming will turn out to be negligible.
Every time I hear the word arson it just makes me laugh,
things are always catching on fire, it's cyclic.
To all the idiots out there who talk about fires
and think we are to blame ask yourself this, have you heard
of and do you believe there have been fires before?
If the answer is yes, how do you suppose forests fires started
tens of millions of years ago?
Do you think mankind had anything to do with it?
does anyone else have a problem with the sound going in one side of the headset?
Almost all earplugs, and headphones I buy, whether expensive or cheap only last about a year because they develop a loose connection. It's either a loose connection either in the join to the headset or the join to the plug.
Even a pair of wireless headphones I bought (for this reason) had this same problem when the wire to the transmitter device had developed such a loose connection. I was like WTF. I guess at some point it must have been tugged or twisted slightly. But I am careful so these devices are just piss fragile.
What happens is you notice one side of the headphone/earblug lose sound one day and you have to find the area of the loose connection and wiggle the wire around a bit to reconnect it. Over time the disconnection gets worse until no amount of re-positioning the wire works.
For this reason I will never buy an expensive headset again, any of the above. Because I have no guarantee they won't just fail after a year.
"If Franzén and his team are right, the big chill is now under way, and is only just being held off by increasing human carbon emissions - perhaps explaining why temperatures have been merely flat for the last 15 years or so, rather than descending."
Surely this is wrong. If Franzén and his team are right then we can expect the world to be still warming and can expect significantly more warming over the 21st century, just like all those climate scientists are saying. That's because Franzén and his team's work is saying CO2 is a strong driver of global temperature. They only predict cooling IF CO2 levels fall. But CO2 levels aren't falling and won't fall without emission cuts. CO2 levels are rising sharply due to human emissions of now over 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. In contrast Franzen and his team say the peatland sink *might* reach 3.7 Gt yr. So it isn't likely to even dent the increase in CO2.
So there is simply no cooling or big chill predicted. Instead expect continued warming. Global temperatures over the last 15 years are consistent with this.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/
"Mahmoud said in a statement to government departments that his ruling requires they "take the necessary measures to block any corrupt or corrupting pornographic pictures or scenes inconsistent with the values and traditions of the Egyptian people"
Traditions like this?
http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v16/n5/fig_tab/3901195ft.html
Anonymous Coward is right for once, you can't just look at numbers about radiation as if it's no different than eggs or marbles. This is RADIATION we are talking about. It's some serious shit. If you get radiation on your clothes you are in serious trouble you can't wash it off because its so sticky and will be on you forever slowly turning you into a mutant. Don't think you can just put your clothes in the washing machine with persil stain remover and it'll be fine. No it won't. You can't even see radiation coming it's invisible, contrary to popular opinion it doesn't glow green. If you want to avoid radiation you have to stay away from nuclear power plants and bombs. If Fukushema taught us anything it's that nuclear power plants and water don't mix and in the UK we have LOTS of water falling from the sky all the time. If all the rain fell at once it would be like a downwards tsunami ON THE POWER PLANT. Wake up people!
Like all of us he carries around a list in his head. For example the adverts of certain comparison websites have been burnt into my brain to such an extent I know I will have to carry around that for the rest of my life. And now I know even if there is an afterlife I will have to remember certain scenes and sounds for eternity. I now stalk the earth with every inch of my being full of hate for them. I wish I had been touched by jimmy savile instead it would be less traumatic.
"Perhaps the Youtube model is the best - you have to watch the first 5 seconds of the ad and if its of interest to you you might watch all of it otherwise you can skip it. I think its the best compromise that anyone's come up with yet."
Well youtube began forcing you to sit through some adverts.
Even that will be scrubbed eventually. As AI algorithms and suchlike improve there will be plugins to solve it. There might even already be plugins to black out youtube ads and mute the sound while they are running, or show something else in it's place. If people have the choice they will rarely watch ads (although even I will watch ads once, what I object to is having to watch the same ad over and over again). Ultimately technology will give the consumer that choice.
Consequences be damned. Once the data reaches the output device people should be able to modify it however they want. If I want to turn the grass orange when watching football matches so be it. If I want to skip the weather part of the news, so be it. If I want to strip ad breaks from the stream, so be it.
The law might try dancing about with this for a while, but eventually the matter will be forced when fully programmable TVs start being produced where you can write or download ad-blocking plugins from the internet and the TV manufacturers can wash their hands of whatever is done. Little different than how ad blocking plugins for browsers work. No-one to sue then unless they want to make such plugins illegal which would be absurd enough to never fly.
If the revenue model of content providers collapses as a result of all this, so be it.
I put the TV on mute during adverts and switch to the laptop. The only problem is remembering to switch back when the ads end. I don't see a problem with something to automatically do this. In fact if I had my way by law broadcasters would be required to send signals indicating adverts were starting/ending so that 3rd parties could use that information.
For once I have to agree with the BBC. I presume the intent was to do this stunt live. Well pointing a microphone at some random planet outside of BBC editorial control might sound like an "exciting" idea, but if it's done before the 9pm watershed with children listening in that is a recipe for disaster. Looks like the BBC have learned an important lesson from the Jimmy Savile affair.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
