Slashdot Mirror

This was studied by a Canadian researcher, who later moved to Australia? See 2016 blog post here: https://blog.csiro.au/seaweed-hold-key-cutting-methane-emissions-cow-burps/ Maybe fully synthetic beef is a better idea - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWtEVbrNdI8&t=158s?

It's been pretty flat for several thousands of years. Except recently it's been rising and is accelerating.

Someone's really not a fan of the facts to have modded this down to 0. The Holocene data is from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. The more recent data is from CSIRO. The fact that sea level rise is accelerating may not be popular, but it should not be surprising. It's a natural consequence of thermal expansion and melting land ice due to global warming.

Engineers in New York City and Seattle probably...

We have more than your hunch to go on. The study referenced in the article suggests that "by the year 2033 more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than 1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. "

It's not uneducated parents that are the problem. It's a lot of middle-class mothers who are totally convinced by the pseudo-science and rubbish that's peddled on the internet and by "Wellness" gurus. Australia seems to be infested with them.

Someone has just been hammered for this.

The Paleo Diet is alive and well here, pushed by a chef who somehow has become a dietary-science expert and made a mint from pushing books that contain dangerous pseudo-diets.

We also seem to be very susceptible to charlatans spruiking special-cancer treatments that do nothing but give false hope, drain someone's bank account and leaves them dead quicker.

First off, I completely agree about your point with so-called "wellness" gurus and other charlatans like David "avocado" Wolfe. These people are doing more to increase sickness and disease than most wars in the last 50 years.

However the Paleo diet has some science behind it, a high protein, low carbohydrate diet has been shown to be beneficial for weight loss and muscle gain. Older Australians like myself knew it as the CSIRO diet before it got hipstered into "paleo". its a diet designed for weight management.

Link to the original paper instead of a news article: An Analysis of the Privacy and Security Risks of Android VPN Permission-enabled Apps

So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every major climate institution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?

Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.

Writing formal specs, and proving your code meets that formal specs, is very hard, very slow work. Data61 proved that their microkernel implements a formal spec. It took them 25 person-years to implement a 7500 line kernel. Very very few software projects justify that level of expenditure.

I agree that system programming should be moving to languages/environments that make safer programming easier though. Why we're still writing non-performance critical code with buffer overflows in 2016 is beyond me.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The paper from the actual researchers is far more guarded, and suggest that it may be EMI similar to Perytons, which are radio sources that appear to look like a pulsar signature.

From Wikipedia - "In 2015, Perytons were found to be the result of premature opening of microwave oven doors at the Parkes Observatory. The microwave oven releases a frequency-swept radio pulse that mimics an FRB as the magnetron turns off.[2][10]"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0524...

Here is a paper on Perytons, and their possible sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5080...

Here is a link on Pulsar physics, including a very basic back of the envelope derivation of the dispersion medium of pulsars. Apparently two pulses from a pulsar are detected a few milliseconds from one another, and stem from the mass difference between the electron and a proton and their interaction with interstellar space. Still trying to get a handle on this.. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/...

Dispersion measure variations and their effect on precision pulsar timing: http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.a...

One of the key concepts to realize with 'van Eck phreaking' is that no shielding provides infinite attenuation at all frequencies. Even solid copper shielding has a finite, if very large, attenuation. With a cryogenic-cooled HEMT or similar front-end and a high gain antenna, the requirements for shielding could be as high as an attenuation of 100dB or more (copper screen is good for 30dB or so typically).

A cryo HEMT front-end isn't that far out of reach, even on pennies, as dry ice can get the temps low enough to foil thin shielding, and thicker shielding can be defeated with liquid nitrogen temps. Specialized near-field antennas that work on magnetic induction principles foil even the thickest pure copper, tin, or aluminum shielding; you need a ferromagnetic shield (mu metal is good) in addition to the copper to shield then.

Vent holes are the hardest, as you then want copper honeycomb material to act as 'waveguide beyond cutoff' attenuators. Slots and gaps of any kind can act as antennas; the Parkes radio telescope, for instance, has a webcam that required a very special enclosure where even the screw spacing had to be controlled. (see http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outre... for details).

A good description of the technology and it history can be found at https://csiropedia.csiro.au/ce...

All observations with the Parkes telescope, at least, are already public-access: the astronomers who gathered the data get a proprietary period of 18 months, but after that it's free for anyone to download. See here. You can search the archive here. The software used for processing the data is open-source, too: for example, this package. (There's a SourceForge page too, though I wouldn't be surprised to find that bundled with malware nowadays.) A paper with a detailed description of the algorithms behind it is also freely available online.

I agree that, as you say, too much science is pay-walled and locked up behind restricted access - but radio astronomy is a great example of a field which *doesn't* do this.

All observations with the Parkes telescope, at least, are already public-access: the astronomers who gathered the data get a proprietary period of 18 months, but after that it's free for anyone to download. See here. You can search the archive here. The software used for processing the data is open-source, too: for example, this package. (There's a SourceForge page too, though I wouldn't be surprised to find that bundled with malware nowadays.) A paper with a detailed description of the algorithms behind it is also freely available online.

I agree that, as you say, too much science is pay-walled and locked up behind restricted access - but radio astronomy is a great example of a field which *doesn't* do this.

All observations with the Parkes telescope, at least, are already public-access: the astronomers who gathered the data get a proprietary period of 18 months, but after that it's free for anyone to download. See here. You can search the archive here. The software used for processing the data is open-source, too: for example, this package. (There's a SourceForge page too, though I wouldn't be surprised to find that bundled with malware nowadays.) A paper with a detailed description of the algorithms behind it is also freely available online.

I agree that, as you say, too much science is pay-walled and locked up behind restricted access - but radio astronomy is a great example of a field which *doesn't* do this.

As to the link, I think I cited the wrong link...

The new link does show corrections to a single satellite dataset - but there's nothing there even faintly close to the 0.6 degrees/year you were claiming. There are both positive and negative corrections that are a fraction of that, as they discover and account for factors like orbital decay.

There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. Admit that and move on ;-)

As to zeta joules, I can't process that information... That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.

Perhaps you should engage in further study, then - and until then, you'll have to accept that this evidence has been audited by expert reviewers, both before and after publication; by people who have enough experience in the field to understand what heat content is. This is how science works in every field.

That said, I don't understand your confusion. How would a temperature figure help here? Do you just want to see an overall degrees/year amount so you can decide subjectively if it's "significant" or not? It's rather more complicated than that.

18810.48 cubic km of water

Did I make another error here? Because these numbers are still no where near what they're talking about. That shows nearly five times the melting of that estimate. That's not even close.

That's because you're calculating from incomplete data. The 200 Gt/year ice loss figure I quoted was an estimate from a single paper that dealt only with the major ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. To get a more accurate figure for all the sea level rise inputs, you also have to factor in the melting glaciers everywhere else in the world. This is further complicated by the fact that ice melt in different areas can contribute quite differently to sea level rise (e.g. if it's floating, or if shrinking ice extent decreases albedo, resulting in warmer water and thus more moisture uptake in the atmosphere, to name a couple of factors). Then on top of this you have to include the effects of thermal expansion, which is around 25% of the total rise.

For a more detailed discussion, you could start with Meier et al 2007, which for example estimates that 60% of sea level rise actually comes from glacier melting, not including the two ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.

you're going to have to show a graph that predates the heavy emission of fossil fuels.

Take a look at Figures 5 through 7 in Church et al 2011, that I already linked to earlier.

Obviously satellite data doesn't go back that far, which is what Shepherd was looking at, but we have fairly good logs of tidal data going back hundreds of years. These are confirmed by sedimentary cores going back to 1300.

That shows a much lower rate of rise... I think they're saying inches per century

This is only looking at ice melt in some specific areas. A direct quote:

we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal... the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year.

This is consistent with our calculations above, as it includes areas beyond Greenland and the Antarctic. But it does not include all global sources of sea level rise; besides, we can measure that directly.

What's more, the rate of sea level rise has itself been increasing. Prior to 1900 it was close to 1mm/year, but in the las

Well, you took the time to write all that out, so I'll do you the courtesy of a response, but I will point out that none of it is worth saying without citations (which was the entire point of this thread).

You call it "common knowledge", but when it contradicts the published, peer-reviewed results from any number of studies, which are compiled, published and endorsed by organisations like NOAA, CRU, CSIRO, and the IPCC in numerous countries, then your "common knowledge" doesn't seem to be all that common at all. I provided linked citations of reputable sources for my claims, so you'll need data at least as reputable (please, no blogs or news articles). I've heard claims just like yours countless times, and nobody has yet provided any reliable data to back them up.

"[surface temperature stations] are mostly not very accurate" - a vague claim, but in aggregate they can still give a very accurate picture of the temperature trend.

"[satellites] have their readings INCREASED every year...The current "correction" is about .4 C" - citation certainly needed for this one, for both claims.

"the depths of the ocean are not warming... It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters." - the data shows that ocean heat content has been rising steadily down to 2,000m. Below that, NASA finds no significant change. But there's a huge amount of energy going into that top 2km of the world's oceans.

"there is no way to know how much [sea level rise] is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle." - well, we know that sea level rise accelerated significantly in the last 150 years. We know that it's consistent with predictions based on thermal expansion and measured ice loss. If it's part of a long-term cycle, there needs to be a cause, and there's no credible evidence of any cyclic cause at that timescale.

"There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice... How much ice are you saying has melted... just give me your rough estimate." - Shepherd et al 2012 finds a net ice mass loss of over 200 gigatonnes/year for the last couple of decades, using multiple lines of evidence.

"ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline." I cite ice mass because it's what matters, for rising heat content and for sea levels. Ice extent is a fairly inaccurate indicator of overall ice melt. That said, ice extent has been declining in the Arctic and Greenland while increasing in the Antarctic (despite overall ice mass decreasing there by around 70 Gt/y).

"if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far... We can look at the volume of water in the oceans and compare the change to your ice loss figures." - Yes, and it matches well with what we've observed, including accounting for thermal expansion (which, if you're tacitly admitting exists, requires significant ocean warming).

Citations - yes please. At this stage, if you have any further claims to make, I want to see only links to reputable published data and peer-reviewed studies, not talk of "common knowledge" or speculation from laymen or reporters.

That's quite a rant there - assumptions, ad hominems, sweeping declarations, invective, ironic projection, the lot. In fact, pretty much everything except data.

Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals? Done:

Science & Education, really? Remember what I said earlier about crap publications that would publish anything? Yeah. It's not exactly Nature, is it? Where is its peer-review policy anyway?

Shame the article is paywalled so we can't examine it, but these guys did. And if it's the article I think it is, applying Monckton's own peculiar standards for handwaving-away any papers that aren't explicit enough for him, only makes the numbers for rejection of AGW look even tinier, at a mere 9 out of 11,944 papers reviewed. And nowhere is there anything to back your claim that the consensus figures "included papers that argued against climate change".

And of course, Cook's paper isn't the only one that arrived at ~97% consensus - from Oreskes to Powell, they all give similar results. Plus, of course, the long list of scientific institutions that have confirmed the findings of AGW, and none dissenting.

[vague accusations & unsourced claims of bias & corruption omitted]

ice age predictions from the 1970s [...] New York was supposed to be under water by 2015

Ah, specifics. Cite the papers that predicted these, please. Or are you getting misled by bad reporting again?

Every year you get weaker and look more foolish

Every year, the surface temperatures rise, ocean temperatures keep going up, sea levels rise some more, global ice mass keeps decreasing - the ongoing trend is obvious everywhere to anyone who opens their eyes, and comes from climate scientists around the globe who couldn't care less about all that Republicans vs Democrats nonsense. The argument about what to do about global warming is certainly political - but the data aren't, and wild, unsourced claims of massive political bias in the field only make the accusers look like the foolish ones.

The Florida Keys are experiencing the effects of sea level rise.

Heading south is a very good thing for astronomers to do. It's like visiting another planet: lots of new stars and stuff, and the familiar constellations are all upside down.

I've observed from Australia, New Zealand and the Cook Islands. My first view of the Eta Carinae region was from St. Kilda Beach in Melbourne. My first view of the Magellanic Clouds was from a highway rest area just south of Echuca, Victoria. One night at a motel in Forbes, NSW, I needed the bathroom in the wee hours and padded out to have a look. I knew the Sagittarius Milky Way would be out at that time of the night, but I couldn't find it at first. It was directly overhead.

Of course I went to Parkes. A nerd's gotta do what a nerd's gotta do. :-)

I'm watching Top Gear in Patagonia, and while Argentina has better scenery, Australia has better weather. And much better roads.

...laura

Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one?

No, I find it quite plausible that the sky is blue, so I'm prepared to take that on your word, and my impression of its prior plausibility.

The problem is that you claimed that "Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful," which despite your attempt to cast this as plausible as "the sky is blue", sets off my bullshit detector. So I wonder if you dreamed it up yourself, or if you have some plausible basis, or data.

There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming"

What about Remote Sensing Systems.?

Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.

The Atlantic has two sides, and stretches two hemispheres. Florida is not that large.

That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...

Okay, that statement is from the AR4, but if you're big into actual data, you're claim is that the data shows that "Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity [...] — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.

As sea level is rising , I assume that you mean that hurricane activity has been demonstrated to be decreasing. However, I can't find any confidence calculations in your link. What statistical significance do you claim can be attributed to this decrease in activity?

The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.

Okay, show me the proof that they were wrong, and to what confidence. And give me the names of these researchers that you want fired. And show me who was doing better at the time that we can replace them with.

Plants love CO2.

Yes, but not equally. Poison ivy loves it more than woody plants. And coral reefs, and so ocean productivity hate it.

Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?

Carbon in the biosphere is a cycle dear. How are you going to keep animals from eating the plants, and how are you going to keep the plants from rotting once they die?

It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down?

No. Momentum is conserved during the jump.

The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years.

Yes. It accelerated.

Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold"

Show me the statistical signficance of the first claim.

The second claim is one that you're happy to hang your hat on? How was it received in the scientific literature?

For instance, SB11 [8] fail to provide any meaningful error analysis in their recent paper and fail to explore even rudimentary questions regarding the robustness of their derived ENSO-regression in the context of natural variability.
Addressing these questions in even a cursory manner would have avoided some of the study’s major mistakes. Moreover, the

If you don't believe, try looking HERE [wordpress.com], and HERE [wordpress.com].

You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?

Do you think that would help?

What kind of luddite world are you posting from?

I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

The luddite blogs you linked to only discussed the USA for a reason: There is a time of observation bias that is in one direction in that data set. For the global data set the adjustments average nearly zero.

NOAA's claim (verified by GISTemp), is that the last 6 months are the warmest ever globally.

Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.

Really. Citation please.

Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.

That would explain sea level rising unabated, wouldn't it?

What's the luddite explanation for that? Alas, THIS PAIR [nature.com] OF PAPERS [nature.com] shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper:
These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

The second paper also confirms warming, explicitly in the abstract.
The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m2 from 2005 to 2013.

That estimate agrees with the 0.9 W/m-1 that is calculated from energy imbalance, which shows the opposite of what you claim. The warming of the oceans is consistent with accepted values of global warming.

Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.

Pro tip: Try to get one of my facts right before calling the scientific community "foolish".

There is probably another reason people aren't celebrating.

No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.

Reading between the lines, you have two points to make. One that you could argue that there isn't global warming while the ice sheets are melting so long as there is a large cooling elsewhere. And two that you don't find that this is a very compelling argument because there isn't such a cooling.

And sure. Ice sheet mass loss is indicative of regional warming, not global warming. 500 cubic kilometres represents about 46 trillion kilowatt hours. Incidentally, at current average Australian electricity prices, that would cost about the same as the GDP of the entire country for about 6.8 years.

It also represents about 0.01 W/m^2 for one year for the entire surface of the earth, or about 1-2% of the total energy imbalance. Possible to hide in other places, in principle, but you'd probably notice. And continued sea level rise is a bit of a cincher.

WTF?

Climate change deniers?

FFS. SIGH
re: You mean like no warming in 17.5 years?
There has been plenty of warming in the last 17.5 years. The warming of the surface air temperature has been marginal, (but not statistically significantly "no warming" as you appear to be claiming.) The best you can correctly and scientifically say, is that there might be a reduction in the rate of warming of the surface air temperature.

The oceans have warmed. As can be seen from the direct measurements, if you're into science, but if you're not, it's clear and obvious from sea level rise which is primarily thermal expansion.

Ice sheets have lost mass.

re: They make models that show doom, and don't match up with reality.
No they don't. They make models that investigate the climate.

Some aspects match with reality well. Some aspects require finer modelling. (And there are probably some physical processes that are not fully understood either, especially with respect to cloud formation).

Sure, all (I think) models have a double-Intertropical Convergence Zone. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful. Quite the opposite. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...". And so work on the DICZ progresses. Science advances. We learn more stuff.

Claiming "Models don't match reality! All this science must therefore be rubbish!" is the call of the Luddites. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton, he built upon his work, and Newton did upon the giants upon whose shoulders he stood. This is how science works.

re: Then they redo the models to match the previous few years and again show doom.
I'll keep this response more concise: Bullshit.

re: Sorry you don't understand this and believe their lies while calling those who tell the truth liars.
Really? That's your claim? The scientists are lying to you?
FFS, mate, think about that for a while and get back to me on how likely it could be.

There are other means of control for example blackberries http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/S.... Of course the current Australian government under the Abbott of Greed and Corruption, consider this a bad idea as there is no profit in it, along with Monsanto as herbicides are far more profitable 'er' better. So they are cutting the funding of the CSIRO in favour of expanding the ministry sport and the Australian Sports advertising Institute http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais as they are more reliable than CSIRO scientists when it comes to hand shaking vote gaining public appearances. So are right wing politicians edible or not and what can they be fed to (the fucking embarrassment of being Australian at this time).

Yea, no big news, this is the latest roll out of old news to supplement the new global wierding narrative the administration is pushing.

Which administration are you talking about? You are aware that the authors of the SAM papers are from: (1) British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom, (2) Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory , Australia, (3) Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Laboratoire HydroSciences Montpellier et Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, and (4) Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia?

So unless this is an administration of Australia, France and the UK, you're mistaken.

This was known and predicted in 1999.

There are new findings about the relationship between the Southern Annular Mode (the winds around Antarctica's latitude and speed), and the ice mass loss. And there are new proxy data for this SAM, showing the current effect the strongest in the past 1000 years. So mass loss acceleration is expected.

No acceleration in the rise

The acceleration is more visible in the data here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/seale...

Do you even know who the CSIRO is?
I doubt they will be manufacturing this themselves, just licensing it to others. This is a good thing for Australia given the Axe the prime minister has taken to their budget.

Oh ya, I get the Australia pattern. I'm sure the Cisco logo "inspired" them.

Under Oz law, the logo is unique enough. We apply a very simple test, if a 7 year old can tell them apart, they aren't the same.

CSIRO was founded in 1928 compared to Cisco's 1984. I'm not sure when the current logo was created (same with Cisco's current logo).

Here are a few of CSIRO's older logo's, it could easily be argued that it's just an evolution of their older logo's:
Logo 1
Logo 2

Besides this, companies usually sue over trade dress, logo's, et al. when there is a risk of brand dilution or harm to the brand (except if you're Apple, then you sue because you're bonkers). With the quality of Cisco's latest kit, being accidentally confused for CSIRO would do more good than harm.

Yeah, describing it as "handheld" is kind of misleading. The photo in TFA shows *just* the handheld part, there's a much larger piece of equipment attached via cable and worn backpack-style...

http://research.ict.csiro.au/events/event-gallery/cebit-germany/cebit-germany-2012/DSC_3736.JPG/image_view_fullscreen

Sea level rise?

Yes. Sea level rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Yes. Sea level also rose over the end of the last glaciation. That was because of the melting glaciers and ice sheets. Note that except for the meltwater pulse, current sea level rise is faster.

The sky is falling!

Ahh, the reference to chicken little that paid denialists use as an argument that people should ignore science, when scientific arguments are failing.

You get some of your information from counter-scientific blogs rather than reliable sources don't you?

The sea level is rising, and it is very fast geologically speaking. The rise several thousand years ago didn't affect coastal cites and infrastructure because they weren't build yet. The changing climate did affect species ranges. Including Homo Sap.

my parents had a dog that could tell when my brother (diabetic) had low blood sugar. They had three dogs at that time and one of them would bark in the middle of the night if he was low. He could somehow tell while sleeping in their bedroom that he was having trouble from across the house. My guess is that his scent changed and the dog was especially sensitive to it, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Not being argumentative here -- was is the same dog that barked all of the time? Maybe one detected it, alerting another who then actually alerted you? (Doesn't matter, I know.) More to the point: dogs have accurate noses, but how fast does smell travel? (One, two, three, four.) I presume it was quiet at night; it could also have been sounds that the dogs were hearing (breathing, coughing, slight moaning, whatever.) No way to test and doesn't really matter; I'm just glad you had a dog that would alert you of the problem. I've heard stories of dogs "acting strangely" and somehow alert their owners before a heart attack or other critical events, so not unheard of. And we're a chemical machine; it makes sense that we'd give off odd smells if things are going badly. My dog tells me of the critical problem that he thinks his stomach is almost empty -- but I think he learned that from the cat. Not nearly as impressive as yours.

Sorry I had meant to specify that it was the same dog every time. The other dogs did not seem to notice the difference, even though they slept closer to his room. The three dogs slept in different rooms, though this sometimes happened during the day when they were wandering around the house as well. After he alerted, if you opened the door to let that particular dog out, he would run to my brother's door and bark outside of it until someone went in to check on him. My current dog definitely does not do anything of that nature. She can definitely tell when I am not feeling well, though. Normally she is the neediest dog on the planet. When I am sick, she just lays at my feet and tries not to bother me. That is probably just her reading my body language, though.

my parents had a dog that could tell when my brother (diabetic) had low blood sugar. They had three dogs at that time and one of them would bark in the middle of the night if he was low. He could somehow tell while sleeping in their bedroom that he was having trouble from across the house. My guess is that his scent changed and the dog was especially sensitive to it, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Not being argumentative here -- was is the same dog that barked all of the time? Maybe one detected it, alerting another who then actually alerted you? (Doesn't matter, I know.) More to the point: dogs have accurate noses, but how fast does smell travel? (One, two, three, four.) I presume it was quiet at night; it could also have been sounds that the dogs were hearing (breathing, coughing, slight moaning, whatever.)

No way to test and doesn't really matter; I'm just glad you had a dog that would alert you of the problem. I've heard stories of dogs "acting strangely" and somehow alert their owners before a heart attack or other critical events, so not unheard of. And we're a chemical machine; it makes sense that we'd give off odd smells if things are going badly.

My dog tells me of the critical problem that he thinks his stomach is almost empty -- but I think he learned that from the cat. Not nearly as impressive as yours.

It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking

No, this is not cherry-picking. There's not question that the earth is warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The oceans are expanding. The surface temperatures are increasing.

This paper looks at the response in the Antarctic Sea Ice, and has found a possible improvement to its understanding.

No cherry picking involved.

Then when the temperatures did not support their theories, it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!".

It was always suspected that global warming would increase extreme weather events because hurricane intensity is highly related to sea surface temperature when they form, and more energy in the atmosphere gives more evaporation so heavier rainfall.

But the theories are thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and optics. They are not challenged if warming is only 0.1C per decade for a decade instead of the long term trend of 0.16C per decade.

When THAT got disproven, it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself, what will the GW people predict next?

The northern sea ice is in steep decline. The Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheet are in accelerating decline.

How on god's green earth do you manage to get to "THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself" for there?

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is stupid to treat it that way.

You've not heard of the greenhouse effect then?

Papers behind paywalls referencing non-public data.

If you want to pick on some field of science for doing this, astronomy is a bad choice. Just about every paper in astronomy gets put up on arxiv.org, where it's available free of charge. And the data from government-funded telescopes, while usually held secret for 12-18 months to give the astronomer a chance to publish first (and hence an incentive to do the work of operating the telescope in the first place), is made public after that time. This is usually done on a per-telescope basis: for example, the data archive for the last telescope I used is here.

All this is so publicly available and known to anyone who works in the field, that when you say things like...

Where is the data? Not released by researchers. Where are the papers? All hidden behind a paywall nobody can afford. Where is the science?

...I find it very hard to believe that you have made a good-faith effort to find the papers and the data, rather than making up unfounded complaints - which is, after all, easier than actually doing science.

CSIRO is not really a patent troll that produces nothing. They do have some software released under GPL or Mozilla Public License. They've also develped software that has been sold off to private companies to become comercial products.

World temperature gradient vs latitude is ~ +1 degree C per 145 km latitude toward the equator. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Temperature_versus_Latitude_png

World temperature change since 1910 is ~ .7 degree C. http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/Climate-change-is-real.aspx'

Ohio is ~370km north-to-south, so that's about 3.6 times the temperature difference from 1910 to now.

Are people in southern Ohio 30-40% less productive than people in northern Ohio?

Most silicon monocrystals are grown by the Czochralski process, in the shape of cylinders up to 2 m long and 30 cm in diameter (figure on the right)

The size of the monocrystal is not the problem.

From http://www.acpo.csiro.au/avogadro.htm

The limiting factors currently are:

The variability from sample to sample of the isotopic abundances M(Si)
The content of impurities and vacancies (n)
Realisation of accurate density standards (m,V)

Not entirely certain why everyone's worried about 2100, when worldwide socio-economic collapse will arrive in 2050.

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Growth-Limits.aspx

You'd think the World Bank would be all over that one.

The other reason that "Average Global Temps Expected to Rise By 1-2 Degrees Celsius Over the Next 50-100 years" is not relevant to the average person, is that "Global Social and Economic Collapse By The Mid-21st Century" is first on the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf (CSIRO's recent validation of the above)

1. Global socio-economic catastrophe
2. Global temperature rise by 2 degrees
3. ???
4. Profit.

See:

The Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update

"A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality"

Geen Illusions by Ozzie Zehner

Carrying capacity of the planet is dependent on how you structure civilization; any estimate is political in nature and open to discussions regarding consumption of energy, food, hard goods and waste handling. To believe otherwise is to leave the decisions to others. If you believe less government is the ultimate solution, I won't have to encourage you to revisit history.

~ You'll be reliving it soon enough.

This is much better than TFA. This is a scientific study from the CSIRO, predicting major social and economic collapse within the next 50 years if we do not act on a number of looming problems - none of which relate to climate change btw.

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Growth-Limits.aspx

There was also this presentation last year at the Institute of Policy Studies in New Zealand:
http://mdsweb.vuw.ac.nz/Mediasite/Viewer/?peid=0b5d458433d74b4d9605d143cdc64aa3

Examine slide #31. It says: "The world is tracking on the Limits to Growth 'business as usual' scenario - leads to ecological and economic collapse (possibly from 2020 onwards)". This is from an actual scientific paper from the CSIRO. It is not guesswork, hyperbole or quackery.

This is much better than TFA. This is a scientific study from the CSIRO, predicting major social and economic collapse within the next 50 years if we do not act on a number of looming problems - none of which relate to climate change btw.

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Growth-Limits.aspx

There was also this presentation last year at the Institute of Policy Studies in New Zealand:
http://mdsweb.vuw.ac.nz/Mediasite/Viewer/?peid=0b5d458433d74b4d9605d143cdc64aa3

Examine slide #31. It says: "The world is tracking on the Limits to Growth 'business as usual' scenario - leads to ecological and economic collapse (possibly from 2020 onwards)". This is from an actual scientific paper from the CSIRO. It is not guesswork, hyperbole or quackery.

Yes, population. From there stems a great deal of problems, most obviously resource depletion.

Have a listen to this. The Australian CSIRO is itself predicting major social and economic collapse within the next 50 years if we do not act on these things. This is nothing to do with climate change.

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Growth-Limits.aspx

There was also this presentation last year at the Institute of Policy Studies in New Zealand:
http://mdsweb.vuw.ac.nz/Mediasite/Viewer/?peid=0b5d458433d74b4d9605d143cdc64aa3

Examine slide #31. It says: "The world is tracking on the Limits to Growth 'business as usual' scenario - leads to ecological and economic collapse (possibly from 2020 onwards)". This is from an actual scientific paper from the CSIRO. It is not guesswork, hyperbole or quackery.

On top of that, the world was ending, Carter was a failure, the Russians were winning and we're all gonna die.

Except that, this time, we really are all going to die.

Absolutely! Please don't underestimate such advances. Check out the article http://www.csiropedia.csiro.au/display/CSIROpedia/Mechanised+cheese+making

Please note CSIRAC was developed by the CSIRO. Yes this is the same organisation that some people have unfairly labelled as a patent troll regarding their licensing claims over technology they developed in relation to Wi-Fi. The CSIRO is a wonderful organisation that Australians should rightfully feel very proud of as they have long rich history of developing technologies that push the boundaries of science and benefit humanity. Take a look at http://www.csiropedia.csiro.au/display/CSIROpedia/Achievements+by+decade to see the great volumes of innovation and excellent achievements of the CSIRO.

Disclaimer: I work at the CSIRO and I feel immensely privileged to work in an organisation that not only developed CSIRAC, but is devoted to advancing society through a multitude of diverse cutting edge scientific research endeavours.

Not to forget CSIRO does a whole bunch of research that they give away absolutely free. It was only the right wing ass hats Liberal Party that demanded all CSIRO research must generate a 'Profit' ie research for pesticides is OK but research using natural predators to controls pest is bad (don't get to sell pesticides etc.). Fortunately this idea was tossed out as basically evil and CSIRO still do a lot of free to access research http://www.csiro.au/. The whining about this patent is likely because money going to CSIRO is a double loss for the greedy, having to pay and a lot of that payment going to free to access research.

Similarly, ASKAP is going ahead in Australia, too - in fact, it's already almost finished, while the MEERKAT timeline says that it'll be ready by 2018.

Similarly, ASKAP is going ahead in Australia, too - in fact, it's already almost finished, while the MEERKAT timeline says that it'll be ready by 2018.

Ultrasound Scanners (as used by pregnant women everywhere)
Solar hot water
A4 DSP chip
Aerogard, insect repellent
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation
Gene shears
Extended Wear Contact Lenses
Interscan Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft
Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
Parkes Radio Telescope
The permanent pleat for fabrics
Polymer (plastic) banknotes, or "funny money"
Relenza flu drug
'Softly' woolens detergent
X-ray phase contrast imaging
Buffalo fly trap
EXELGRAM (optical anti-counterfeiting technology)
RAFT (Reversible Addition-Fragmentation chain Transfer) Polymerisation
The Mills Cross radiotelescope design
Supercapacitors
24 hour tests for Tuberculosis in animals and humans


It was also the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope that beamed the Moon Landing.

CSIRO isn't a patent troll, they're a government owned R&D organisation. They get money from inventions, but who doesn't? Patent trolls come up with (obvious) ideas and never make it work. CSIRO actually patents completed inventions.

Some more achievements for you.

Ultrasound Scanners (as used by pregnant women everywhere)
Solar hot water
A4 DSP chip
Aerogard, insect repellent
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation
Gene shears
Extended Wear Contact Lenses
Interscan Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft
Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
Parkes Radio Telescope
The permanent pleat for fabrics
Polymer (plastic) banknotes, or "funny money"
Relenza flu drug
'Softly' woolens detergent
X-ray phase contrast imaging
Buffalo fly trap
EXELGRAM (optical anti-counterfeiting technology)
RAFT (Reversible Addition-Fragmentation chain Transfer) Polymerisation
The Mills Cross radiotelescope design
Supercapacitors
24 hour tests for Tuberculosis in animals and humans


It was also the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope that beamed the Moon Landing.

CSIRO isn't a patent troll, they're a government owned R&D organisation. They get money from inventions, but who doesn't? Patent trolls come up with (obvious) ideas and never make it work. CSIRO actually patents completed inventions.

Some more achievements for you.

Ultrasound Scanners (as used by pregnant women everywhere)
Solar hot water
A4 DSP chip
Aerogard, insect repellent
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation
Gene shears
Extended Wear Contact Lenses
Interscan Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft
Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
Parkes Radio Telescope
The permanent pleat for fabrics
Polymer (plastic) banknotes, or "funny money"
Relenza flu drug
'Softly' woolens detergent
X-ray phase contrast imaging
Buffalo fly trap
EXELGRAM (optical anti-counterfeiting technology)
RAFT (Reversible Addition-Fragmentation chain Transfer) Polymerisation
The Mills Cross radiotelescope design
Supercapacitors
24 hour tests for Tuberculosis in animals and humans


It was also the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope that beamed the Moon Landing.

CSIRO isn't a patent troll, they're a government owned R&D organisation. They get money from inventions, but who doesn't? Patent trolls come up with (obvious) ideas and never make it work. CSIRO actually patents completed inventions.

Some more achievements for you.