Spitting image
Did a skit where Cecil Parkinson suggested Olympic Bonking. When asked how they'd decide the winner, he replied "simple, the one who comes last wins".
628 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jan 2008
There are other first order forcings as well as CO2, and they include land use change, aerosols and particulates. These operate in a regional fashion and change weather patterns. It is simply not reasonable to attribute glacier melt to a single cause.
The decline of Kilimanjaro glaciers was originally attributed to AGW and was a poster child of the effects of AGW, but now, almost everyone accepts that the *predominant* cause has been deforestation below Kilimanjaro.
The records kept of the size of glaciers is not particularly good in either extent or depth. With satellite imaging, we'll have much better coverage, but it could take 100 years before we really know the truth....
I suspect that the subsidies are only part of it. I wonder if they've also been looking at the infrastructure cost of supporting those extra turbines. I do remember reading something about spending billions just to get the leccy from proposed turbines in Scotland. Let alone the gas generation required to back up wind farm generation.
Finally, the maths of what's being added (and will be added) to consumers fuel bills has met the politicians desire to be re-elected.
Full steam ahead with nuclear and shale gas then. Or rolling blackouts.
It looks like a good thing, if you have a garage or a drive to park it on. I have neither. Indeed, so days I can't park within 200m of my house. I live in a semi in a medium sized market town and this sort of vehicle would deal with 70% of the journeys I make.
But I can't charge it, and probably never will be able to. I'd like to be more enthusiastic, but it still seems like something for a small minority of people unless someone is prepared to spend a *lot* of money on infrastructure.
This is what the course description says:
"firstly, the understanding and measuring of environmental change, using physical and historical evidence to put contemporary changes into context;
secondly, how to deal with uncertainty and risk, analysing the practical and theoretical significance of these concepts;
and thirdly, competing ideas concerning the value of nature and how those values might be reconciled, ranging from economic to aesthetic and ethical evaluation"
Looks to be quite interesting if delivered in a balanced fashion...
Actually, what it says is that *currently*, there's no way to attribute any extreme weather event to anthropogenic CO2. It then goes on to make *predictions* for various types of weather event based on model projections and assigns confidence levels to them.
The report also clearly states that any anthropogenic contribution is likely to be small compared to natural variation...
So, as the article (and Pielke) point out, anyone trying to make links between *current* weather and CO2 cannot do it. There just isn't enough data to be able to make the determination.
"The second issue with thorium power, which could kill it stone dead, is that U-233 is fast fissile and can be used in nuclear weapons"
I thought that the original research into thorium reactors in the US was killed because the reactors weren't going to produce anything that could be used to build nuclear weapons. Not saying you're wrong, just that was the impression I had...
In any event, thorium isn't ready for the big time. Yet. There was a 'Costing The Earth' programme that's worth listening to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cjwv1
And that's the point. Physics says that a doubling of CO2 should give us a ~1c rise in temp. Further doubling will result in significantly lower rises in temperature. That's the settled science.
After that we're into the realms of models and feedback effects caused by increased water vapour in the atmosphere. So your analogy may be initially attractive, but it's not really a good fit for the problem...
The facts as stated are correct. There is no long term trend indicating that there is an increase in rate of rise of sea level. Tide gauges and satellite differ in the rate or rise, but neither indicate any change in the rate.
There will need to be a significant change in the rate of rise for there to be anything close to 1m global average rise by the end of this century. Which isn't to say that it can't happen, and some models may predict it, but that at the moment there's no sign of it.
Was trying to make the point that the predictions have to date been for more or less permanent water shortage. Hence massive spending on desal. Now there have been floods, the story has to change. If you look back at Australian weather, there's a history of alternating drought and flood. Seem to me that CSIRO are predicting no change from typical Australian weather.
I meant El Nino. Of which there have been a succession, combined with a phase of the PDO that's probably been the main cause of the lack of rain. Now, we're in a different phase of PDO, combined with La Nina and the weather is wetter...
It's like the cold weather here.
For years Australia has had droughts in no small part to pronounce La Nino effects and PDO. The climate chaos people have been predicting permanent drought for Australia in the same way that people here were predicting an end to snow in winter. Billions have been spent on desalination schemes.
It's raining and dams are overflowing. An inconvenient truth of a different kind.
So the story has to change. This is all about politics and nothing to do with climate or weather.
Leaving aside the problems in actually accurately measuring sea level rise (and there are a lot), there's no indication of exactly when we can expect to see these islands inundated. Frankly this looks to me to be just as much a grab for attention and money as holding a cabinet meeting under water.
Global sea levels have been rising ever since the last ice age ended and look set to continue to rise until the next ice age, so these islands would possibly have been inundated eventually anyway. How much sooner this would occur due to the effects of man? Dunno.
What can be said is that, so far, all the IPCC estimates/projections/models for sea level rise have been shown to be high when compared with the measurements.
Have Apple finally begun to realise that they may have spawned a monster? At one time it must have looked like a really good idea to use the law and patents to try and bludgeon their competitors into silence and preserve their grip on the market.
Now, anyone with a patent and reasonably competent lawyer is looking at Apple and wondering if they've got a chance, death by thousand cuts.
Frankly, if this continues for another 10 years I expect all technological progress to have halted. Which isn't what anyone wanted or intended, but it's about right for the fucked up world we currently have. It would be funny if our fellow human beings (who have as much to lose as the rest of us) hadn't done it to us.
There appears to be an assumption that the decreasing ice cover in the Arctic is all the result of the warming that has occurred, and not at least in part due to natural variation.. Historical records from ship voyages would indicate that there have been periods where summer Arctic ice cover has been at least as low as it is currently.
For the last decade or more we've been told that cold winters were a thing of the past. But now we're told they're a consequence of warming. Well, if the predictions of the consequences of warming are *this* good, how can we rely on anything else we're told about what might happen as temperatures rise.
Remember, the basic physics says that without feedback effects, a doubling of CO2 should give ~1c rise in global temperature. The rest of the IPCC predicted rise is FEEDBACK. We are a some way from being able to *accurately* estimate the actual rise in global temps we'll see from a doubling of CO2, and even further away from providing predictions of what that means in terms of the weather we'll get.
I'm not griping about the fact we're 'collaborating' with the French, just that if we want a nuclear program we have *no choice* but to collaborate. That weak position will mean that we will have to pay top dollar for the expertise and, if the French have anything like their usual guile about these sort of things, they'll also make sure that we continue to be dependant on them for the technology for decades to come.
I was trying to make the point (admittedly in a roundabout way) that this is another example of the inability of the UK to nurture technical excellence.
Sounds good, but I'm not holding my breath. WWF and Greenpeace and sundry other greenies will fight this tooth and nail, and I still expect national grid to be scheduling power cuts before one of these ever goes on line.
It will be interesting to see where they decide to place the stations. Given that the SNP is dead against this sort of thing I'm assuming that the sites will all be in England and Wales... This is going to be very interesting.
Finally, what an admission of failure in having to go to the French to ask for help because we're no-longer capable of doing this sort of thing for ourselves.
There are an awful lot of bad coders out there, and there's an awful lot of code that needs to be written. However, out of all of that code there's probably a relatively small amount that actually has requirements that would make an interpretive language impossible to use. We also don't have enough people with the wit and wisdom to work out what is appropriate and what is not.
Frankly, if we end up with people going back to using C++ for this sort of stuff, I predict a flood of buffer overrun security issues in servers all over the globe. I know you can write safe C++, and the people coding in C++ should know how to write safe C++. But that's theory, practice and experience should tell us something else...
We've got a generation of devs brought up on Java and C#, they're going to require careful supervision...
I suppose Greenpeace have to be seen to be 'doing something'. I guess they've given up trying to tell us that the world is doomed because we've all got fed up with that, and are more worried about whether we'll have a job next week and have the money to pay the mortgage on the house that's in negative equity.
Which all goes to show that when it comes to dealing with problems, stuff that's happening now is always going to trump stuff that may happen in 50 years time. Looking back on it 1995-2005 might be seen as the period where the industrialised world had the luxury of being able to get its knickers in a twist about impending global climate meltdown because it had nothing better to worry about.
"Turning everything into another lump of plastic is an assault on human potential."
Well, that's your pov. Don't see it myself though. I'm sure there will continue to be plenty of books available that will not have animated content or even pictures. As ever, it will come down to choice. If there's enough of a market for text only or paper, they will persist.
Given a choice between lugging several kilos of reference books with me or having them on a small , light 'lump of plastic', I know which I'd choose.
The sammie looks pretty good, even when compared to the Sony Nex7 *except* that there's no EVF which would be a deal breaker for me.
Still, the whole CSC development is something I'm looking at with real interest. I would be happy to sacrifice my Canon 7d for something capable of images of a similar quality from a package so much lighter and smaller.
Another issue is that climate scientists generally insist on doing their own statistical analysis, rather than handing the work over to experienced and published statisticians. They also seem to be pushing the envelope regarding statistical techniques as they try to squeeze a very small signal from some very noisy data.
I'd be more impressed with paleoclimatology if, when they use new techniques to analyse their data, they also published in the statistical literature to demonstrate the validity of the techniques that they use.
For the record, I think it's warmer and that CO2 emissions are part of the problem, but I've yet to be convinced we know how much warmer it really is, or how much is caused by anthropogenic CO2.
Did you read the article? It also said that the swap out stations were unlikely to make it to the UK except in larger Renault dealers. So, that's one problem. The other is, lacking swap out stations, where do I charge the batteries?
Like an awful lot of people, I don't have a drive or a garage, and often, I can't park within 100m of my house.... I'm probably not alone in this.
So, while we concentrate on sustainable electricity, we'd also better concentrate on providing millions of roadside charging stations. Yup, that'll be really entertaining for everyone digging up the roads while all that cable is laid.
I'm afraid I remain unconvinced...
Generally I have an aversion to statements from Monbiot, but in this particular case he (and you) are completely right.
I'm also getting fed up with people talking about a solar industry. It's NOT an industry, it's *installers*, which means electricians and builders. It's not high tech, it's not difficult to install and we import the panels, and probably, pretty much everything else associated with them.
The whole scheme is daft, it will make little or no difference to *our* CO2 emissions let alone have any measurable effect on the climate. But it will make some people poorer, and very possibly result in the deaths this winter because they're too worried about their fuel bills to heat their homes properly. Where is the justice in that?
It is my dogs *instinct* to chase stuff. In the case of cats, rabbits and other smaller mammals, it would, in all probability kill them if it caught them. I am required by law to maintain control of my dog by NOT letting it out unless I have control of it.
It is a common myth that cats find a place out of the way and bury their shit. Some do, the majority don't. Cats *can* be taken out for walks on a lead, I know, because I've seen people doing it. In that case you would have control of your cats arse. You might also prevent it from killing birds.
My family always had cats as pets. Time went past and when I got somewhere of my own I decided I'd rather have birds in the garden. That was when I really began to appreciate that your average moggie likes a nice veggie patch for a shit. Or flowerpots or tubs or, in fact anywhere that's NOT on its territory.
So, I don't have to be garden proud to object to getting cat shit on my hands when I'm gardening.
People here aren't saying you can't keep a cat, just that you take responsibility for some of its less desirable habits. Saying that you can't help it, or that the cat is beyond your control is just you trying to find an excuse for your inadequacy.
It's not clear from this article that May claims she issued instructions that checks were to be reduced *only* for EU nationals, and had specifically stated that they should not be reduced for other groups. She also said that the reason for doing this was to ensure that arrivals from more high risk areas were given more rigorous checks.
Now, I'm not saying that what she said will turn out to be the truth, but I do think the article could have been a little more balanced...
@jimmypage Wasn't suggesting you were a renewables nutter, just that we will need the gas if we go down the renewables route and want to avoid being completely at the mercy of Russia. If you factor in a proposed switch to electric vehicles, demand for leccy is set to rise significantly. I don't see that there are economies we can make in other areas that will offset it in any significant fashion.
I'm sure the gubermint will address the issue of cost by raising taxes to keep the price at a suitably high level, I don't forsee any significant drop in price. What it can give us is some degree of energy security, I worry about the idea of it being extracted and sold on the world market and not used by us, and therefore being depleted quicker. This stuff is precious, and we should be reserving it for our own use. Again, I do not trust a gubermint to manage it in the best long term interests of the nation.
Actually, if the renewable nutters have their way and we don't build nuclear power stations and try to generate a significant portion of our leccy from renewables we're going to need this gas to provide the backup for when the wind isn't blowing. It will be that or being prepared to bend over for the Russians. I know which one I'd prefer.
Any reduction in the price of gas will almost certainly be eaten away by a corresponding increase in taxes levied. I'm old enough to remember the promises of riches that were going to come from the development of north sea oil was discovered, and we all know how that worked out. Some countries built up large sovereign wealth funds, others didn't...
They always were, and they always will be. No gubermint is going to pay them any attention unless they happen to agree with whatever the gubermint wants. We live in a democracy, but only with constraints.
Perhaps we should have an e-petition to call for the abolition of e-petitions.
The cost of renewables won't go down that much, as it's the cost of the infrastructure required to support their use that's the major part of the expense of installing them.
All the concrete that has to be poured for the bases of the wind turbines, the cables that have to be laid, the re-jigging of the power distribution grid to be able to support them and the back up power stations that will have to be built for when the wind doesn't blow.
You may not be able to trade wind directly, but you can trade the the sites for the wind farms, and the output from them. Power companies will trade any form of energy that'll make them money. If *you* read around you'll see that there are already a lot of energy companies who can see a massive feast from renewables based solely on the subsidies the gubermints are providing from our inflated energy bills.
It's an experiment that supports a theory that has been largely ignored or dismissed by climate scientists, and that in itself is significant. Of course the experiment doesn't *prove* anything - yet. But it lends support to the idea that there's more than one influence on climate, and that the 'consensus' don't yet have it all mapped out, despite assurances from the IPCC.
My main concern is that the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is the only significant driver of climate change has, like the big banks, become too important to be allowed to fail. There are too many politicians, scientists, corporations and NGOs that have nailed their colours (and our money) to the AGW mast.
It will take a lot of evidence overturn the consensus, But that's how it should be.
The more money we hand to Murdoch the more his organs will protrude into our lives :-)
Someone earlier in the commentary thread pointed out that people are (apparently) happy paying through the nose for things that they used to be able to watch for free.
Just don't be one of them.
So losing half your coverage is a good deal?
What really baffles me is that the terrestrial broadcasters won't cooperate to buy the rights to this sort of stuff. I'm sure it would be more complex contractually, particularly if they shared 'talent' in the commentary box.
But, for example, what's stopping C4, BBC and C5 co-operating on the home international cricket? The first two agree to share the live coverage (alternate matches) and C5 get the highlights. They use the same commentary/production team which would cut costs for them.
Even if they didn't win the bid, at least they'd make Sky have a nosebleed outbidding them.
Well, he said he never wants a media organisation to be in the same position of power and influence as News International. If that can be applied to NI, then why not the BBC? They have a significant lock on news and current affairs reporting in this country...
He is a massive bastard and I hope he gets everything he deserves. But the power he has (or had) is the power we or our representatives gave him. People buy his newspapers and watch sky TV.
There was no coup, no revolution we gave it to him willingly. We were told and we did it anyway.
Frankly, are the Sun, Mirror, Star, Express, and Mail any better than the News Of The Screws?
Have you ever watched 'The Rise And Rise Of Michael Rimmer'? there are parallels.
He didn't say that they didn't have influence, he said that there was no justification for the politicians *giving* him influence. That is, had the politicians refused to kiss Murdochs arse there was nothing he could have done to them or to this country worth a damn. It was the politicians perception of his influence that gave him the influence in the first place.
This is partly why there's all the fuss, the politicians want him to have been all powerful, because then they can claim some justification for what they did, and not been seen as a bunch of self serving wankers.
I loved and hated this game. It was incredibly hard to get into, but the satisfaction in finishing it...
XCom Apocalypse was an improvement, and the fun I had in having my agents take control of an alien, teleport in, steal his weapons, give him a primed grenade and teleport back out. Oh joy oh bliss.
Other than the Jagged Alliance games, I've seen nothing else that comes even close.
As I recall, a few years ago everyone was worried about the inexplicable loos of amphibian, and were blaming pollution, climate change and habitat loss. Then they discovered the fungus. By which time I'm sure eager researchers have managed to spread it into many areas it would never have got to.
Lets hope the people that have been looking for this toad didn't take the amphibian killing fungus with them on their boots. It's probably the fact that it's been 'lost' that's been keeping it alive in the first place.
Sometimes less is more.
Was a frequent visitor to Downing St and close to the Blairs during his time as our glorious leader. NewsCorp have stuck like glue to UK government since Thatcher. The ConDems (isn't that a bit M$) are/were just more of the same. She was also 'close' to Gordo when he was trying to prop up his empire... I saw an interesting bit of footage on newsnight with Gordos people trying to get cameras switched off when Brooks came into focus while Gordo was out and about.
As mentioned earlier, this shit has been going on for decades. If all the journos that have worked for the NOTW during the phone hacking period are followed to their new jobs, there won't be many media organizations left untainted by this.