Unless you have a strong military, your strong military may be an inducement to an attack? Please rethink this ridiculous comment.
Don't put words into my mouth and congratulate yourself for pointing out I'm wrong! I said unless you are a hyper-power (the obviously strongest military), or you have MAD-type weapons. Both are relatively recent scenarios. I think game-theory would agree with my opinion here. I'm not taking account of the fact that stronger powers can potentially bully weaker ones, but all else being equal, arms races are not a good idea and neither is militarism. History would also agree with me.
Which mitigation strategies are you considering, and why don't they work? What makes you think that a loss of all coastal cities in the world is cheaper than actually doing something about the problem?
The mitigation strategy that, for example, will cost the UK almost £1,000,000,000,000 if it's going to meet its 80% CO2 reduction target by 2040. And even if it does meet that target, the policy will make no appreciable difference to Earth's temperature whatsoever, apart from an obvious reduction in the UHI affect from our now deserted towns and cities. Yes, you read that right no appreciable affect to the temperature, using the IPCC's own figures.
What makes you think that a loss of all coastal cities in the world is cheaper than actually doing something about the problem?
Why do you think coastal towns and cities will be destroyed? Do you still think that, as Hansen said, they will be destroyed by the year 2000? Do you think that the trend rise in ocean levels is any different than it was 100, or 200 years ago? I don't and neither did the IPCC! The trend rate has not accelerated. If you want, you can go and get your snorkel and flippers, but I don't think I'll fucking bother!
Wearing a cycle helmet may increase your risk of a collision, because drivers leave less of a gap when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without.
Robinson shows that, despite significant increases in helmet-wearing, there was no greater improvement in cycle safety than for pedestrian safety over the same period. On the other hand, there were substantial reductions in cycle use, amounting to a significant loss of the health and other benefits of cycling. Robinson says: "This contradiction may be due to risk compensation, incorrect helmet wearing, reduced safety in numbers (injury rates per cyclist are lower when more people cycle), or bias in case control studies."
Paul Hewson finds no detectable relationship between helmet-rates and on-road cycle safety in Great Britain. A second article, also by Hewson (this one published in Accident Analysis and Prevention journal), reaches the same conclusion for child cyclists. Hewson emphasises that this doesn’t necessarily mean that helmets are ineffective; an alternative explanation is that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling, and he points out that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that road safety professionals have no grounds for being involved in helmet promotion, given the lack of detectable benefits for on-road cyclists.
A report on children’s cycling from the National Children’s Bureau includes a very useful appendix surveying the literature on helmets. It states, “Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.”
[The citation is currently unavailable]
You will be able to find counter views, but don't accuse me of being a neo-con just because I demonstrated the law of unintended consequences by citing research concerning cycling helmets. I'm sure you look like a twat wearing yours and have spent years explaining to colleagues and friends how your brain is now invincible because you're wearing one, by way of justification.
In all seriousness, take care on the roads. I've got a 4x4 and sometimes you cyclists are difficult to see, even with your silly hats and high visibility pants.
I did listen to an In Our Time postcast on BBC Radio 4 that suggested a link between Snowball Earth and the Edicara Biota (pre-Cambrian life-forms) in terms of cause and effect. Although the link was tentative, it was interesting.
What data would that be? He demonstrated (in LC) a sensitivity of 0.5C in a recent paper. Which IPCC predictions are you going on about? Didn't James Hansen say we'd all be underwater by 10 years ago? Why do you believe the horse-shit these doom-sayers come out with?
Only the kind of logic-challenged toolbags who deny mankind's impact on global climate could come up with that argument. The only negative impact from a helmet is on hearing.
Look at the pro's and con's of wearing helmets. There are those in favour and those against. There is evidence of both sides. To put the negative case:
Robinson reviewed data from jurisdictions where helmet use increased following legislation, and concluded that helmet use did not demonstrably reduce cyclists' head injuries.[39] Mayer Hillman, a transport- and road safety-analyst from the UK, does not support the use of helmets, reasoning that they are of very limited value in the event of a collision with a car, that risk compensation negates their protective effect and because he feels their promotion implicitly shifts responsibility of care to the cyclist.[106][107] He also cautions against placing the recommendations of surgeons above other expert opinion in the debate, comparing it to drawing conclusions on whether it is worthwhile to buy lottery tickets by sampling only a group of prizewinners.[108] The prominent UK-based cycling activist John Franklin is skeptical of the merits of helmets, regarding proactive measures including bike maintenance and riding skills as being more important.[109] Cyclists' representative groups complain that focus on helmets diverts attention from other issues which are much more important for improving bicycle safety, such as road danger reduction, training, roadcraft, and bicycle maintenance.[110][111] Of 28 publicly funded cycle safety interventions listed in a report in 2002, 24 were helmet promotions. For context, one evaluation of the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions estimated that 27% of cyclist casualties could be prevented by various measures, of which just 1% could be achieved through a combination of bicycle engineering and helmet use.
The ocean doesn't fix CO2 once it's already saturated with it. Unfortunately it has not actually reached this point and so it is still acidifying.
Who's the toolbag here exactly? The ocean is not acidic by any definition. The term "acidification" is a complete misnomer. The alkalinity of the ocean has changed by a small amount. It's not more acidic. Get it? Attribution is impossible. Consequences are guesses. Models predict catastrophe. And it's all your fault. Who'd have thought small (relative) changes in a trace gas in the atmosphere would have such catastrophic consequences!
According to Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it's probably less than 1C.
Glad to hear it.
I'm talking broad statistical evidence of course. You can always find cases where it did make a difference, but then you never know if you would have "fallen" differently without the helmet, do you?:p.
Are you serious? Venus has 95% atmospheric CO2 by volume, no liquid oceans, is much closer to the Sun and has no biosphere. It's a completely different world. James Hansen is a green activist. He gave up science a long time ago. I'm more likely to read a book by Al Gore than I am by that fucking lunatic.
Yes, these corporations are busy promoting alarmism. Goldman Sachs and a lot of other financial institutions want to trade carbon. The energy companies are looking forward to huge public subsidies for all of the various Great Green Elephants (indeed, they are already receiving them). The Government loves taxes.
I'm happy to be in the position that I can tell the difference between a fact and a model output. I will let you know when someone who doesn't have a grant-hunting interest in alarmism publishes a sceptical paper. We may have to wait a while; I think Michael Mann is on the editorial boards of a lot of journals.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the order of a few tenths of a degree. Even the IPCC states this. The "catastrophism" comes from the hypothesised positive feedbacks. Did we see such feedbacks with the previous CO2 doubling (from, say, 190ppm to 380ppm)? No, we didn't! So why do you think the next doubling will give you up 3-9C warming all of a sudden? Will the laws of physics be different this century from those of the 20th century? (probably, but only if Witten gets a clue). You are hypothesising that overwhelming positive feedbacks will kick in at some point and the temperature will "run away". You have no evidence whatsoever to show that CO2 has caused any such affect in the past. Indeed one can argue that given in the past CO2 was far, far higher in concentration than it is today, it is unlikely such an affect is possible.
What happens if you remove El Nino 1998 from that graph? We know that's not an atmospheric phenomenon, it's an oceanic cycle, and it was the most powerful El Nino for a very long time indeed, nothing to do with CO2. According to Phil Jones, there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995. That's 15 years. Around 1/2 of your usual "significant" timescale. It's not looking good for the hypothesis, is it?
Given that increased temperatures on Earth are associated with increased biodiversity, if the critters are going to start complaining, they should be more concerned with Human population increase, not carbon dioxide. Population and economic prosperity are somewhat correlated (the more wealthy the population, the fewer children couples have), you would surely agree that one solution to increasing population pressure is to make the poor richer. I don't think you'll be able to do that by replacing coal or gas fired power stations with a fucking windmill.
Where is this relentless warming? There's been no statistically significant warming since 1995. None of the models predicted that, did they? Why? Because they're wrong?
What evidence do you have that there's going to be a desert across the equator? I mean apart from the fact that the UK Met Office decided to change its map to show all landmasses as brown, rather than green (when I fly over the UK, it looks pretty ****ing green to me - what they did was very Orwellian, if I may say so). If equatorial desertification does happen, it will be due to population pressure, deforestation and agricultural practices, not AGW.
Of course you realize the people saying that also support AGW?
Yes of course I do. They are in the business of successfully transferring money from the Government to their institution, so naturally they must append, "because of man-made Global Warming" to each and every grant proposal. But anyway, that doesn't change the facts and the facts are what we're interested in, surely?
Well, you see that's the thing. You can argue the case from both sides. Scientific research shows that, for example, wearing a cycling helmet makes no difference. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident. Likewise unless you're a hyper-power, or have a nice stash of nukes, your strong military may be a threat to others and therefore you may be more likely to be attacked, not less.
To my mind even if the case is made that there is going to be warming, the economic "cure" is far, far, worse than the illness (cost of adaptation). So let us assume the scientific case is made (I don't believe it is); the economics of mitigation are truly from the mad-house.
Again (I say `again' because I frequently make this point), this is the precautionary principle v the law of unintended consequences. For example, it may be the case that maintaining a strong army and large defence industry makes you more likely to engage in war, much like giving a child pads and a helmet will make him more likely to take greater risks when he rides his bicycle.
There is no evidence the phenomenon – which brings a constant flow of warm water and mild weather to northern Europe – has slowed down over the past 20 years, climate scientists say.
‘The changes we’re seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle,’ said researcher Josh Willis, from Nasa.
Yes, but I suppose I meant how much mass of gassy stuff (hydrogen mostly) in this general location would it require for it to collapse under gravity and eventually form a star. By star I mean a radiating body powered by nuclear fusion, prevented from blowing apart by the counter-acting force of gravity. I originally requested this mass in units of masses of Jupiter, given it's a lot easier to visualise than SI units. I'm guessing you can't form a star by simply twiddling the variables mass/density; you do need a certain amount of mass for the star to be viable over some period of time (let us say for the sake of argument, 1 Earth year:p).
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, are you going to model that? Your chain of causation could go back a very long way. Poincaré anyone?
Don't put words into my mouth and congratulate yourself for pointing out I'm wrong! I said unless you are a hyper-power (the obviously strongest military), or you have MAD-type weapons. Both are relatively recent scenarios. I think game-theory would agree with my opinion here. I'm not taking account of the fact that stronger powers can potentially bully weaker ones, but all else being equal, arms races are not a good idea and neither is militarism. History would also agree with me.
The mitigation strategy that, for example, will cost the UK almost £1,000,000,000,000 if it's going to meet its 80% CO2 reduction target by 2040. And even if it does meet that target, the policy will make no appreciable difference to Earth's temperature whatsoever, apart from an obvious reduction in the UHI affect from our now deserted towns and cities. Yes, you read that right no appreciable affect to the temperature, using the IPCC's own figures.
Why do you think coastal towns and cities will be destroyed? Do you still think that, as Hansen said, they will be destroyed by the year 2000? Do you think that the trend rise in ocean levels is any different than it was 100, or 200 years ago? I don't and neither did the IPCC! The trend rate has not accelerated. If you want, you can go and get your snorkel and flippers, but I don't think I'll fucking bother!
Research
Research
Research
[The citation is currently unavailable]
You will be able to find counter views, but don't accuse me of being a neo-con just because I demonstrated the law of unintended consequences by citing research concerning cycling helmets. I'm sure you look like a twat wearing yours and have spent years explaining to colleagues and friends how your brain is now invincible because you're wearing one, by way of justification.
In all seriousness, take care on the roads. I've got a 4x4 and sometimes you cyclists are difficult to see, even with your silly hats and high visibility pants.
I did listen to an In Our Time postcast on BBC Radio 4 that suggested a link between Snowball Earth and the Edicara Biota (pre-Cambrian life-forms) in terms of cause and effect. Although the link was tentative, it was interesting.
Oh good lord, you work for or are running a fucking green energy company. Hoping to scam the public purse for your dinner are you? Conflicts of interest? How can you possibly give out an objective opinion on this subject?
What a fraud!
What data would that be? He demonstrated (in LC) a sensitivity of 0.5C in a recent paper. Which IPCC predictions are you going on about? Didn't James Hansen say we'd all be underwater by 10 years ago? Why do you believe the horse-shit these doom-sayers come out with?
Look at the pro's and con's of wearing helmets. There are those in favour and those against. There is evidence of both sides. To put the negative case:
Who's the toolbag here exactly? The ocean is not acidic by any definition. The term "acidification" is a complete misnomer. The alkalinity of the ocean has changed by a small amount. It's not more acidic. Get it? Attribution is impossible. Consequences are guesses. Models predict catastrophe. And it's all your fault. Who'd have thought small (relative) changes in a trace gas in the atmosphere would have such catastrophic consequences!
Of course he does. He's the moron who started this whole scare in the first place.
My current book is The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the corruption of science, thus proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you get off on buying alarmist books and I get off on buying sceptical books.
I'm wondering what you mean by "the whole American Geophysical Union". Is it similar in nature to the APS?
According to Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it's probably less than 1C.
Glad to hear it. I'm talking broad statistical evidence of course. You can always find cases where it did make a difference, but then you never know if you would have "fallen" differently without the helmet, do you? :p.
Are you serious? Venus has 95% atmospheric CO2 by volume, no liquid oceans, is much closer to the Sun and has no biosphere. It's a completely different world. James Hansen is a green activist. He gave up science a long time ago. I'm more likely to read a book by Al Gore than I am by that fucking lunatic.
Yes, these corporations are busy promoting alarmism. Goldman Sachs and a lot of other financial institutions want to trade carbon. The energy companies are looking forward to huge public subsidies for all of the various Great Green Elephants (indeed, they are already receiving them). The Government loves taxes.
I'm happy to be in the position that I can tell the difference between a fact and a model output. I will let you know when someone who doesn't have a grant-hunting interest in alarmism publishes a sceptical paper. We may have to wait a while; I think Michael Mann is on the editorial boards of a lot of journals.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the order of a few tenths of a degree. Even the IPCC states this. The "catastrophism" comes from the hypothesised positive feedbacks. Did we see such feedbacks with the previous CO2 doubling (from, say, 190ppm to 380ppm)? No, we didn't! So why do you think the next doubling will give you up 3-9C warming all of a sudden? Will the laws of physics be different this century from those of the 20th century? (probably, but only if Witten gets a clue). You are hypothesising that overwhelming positive feedbacks will kick in at some point and the temperature will "run away". You have no evidence whatsoever to show that CO2 has caused any such affect in the past. Indeed one can argue that given in the past CO2 was far, far higher in concentration than it is today, it is unlikely such an affect is possible.
What happens if you remove El Nino 1998 from that graph? We know that's not an atmospheric phenomenon, it's an oceanic cycle, and it was the most powerful El Nino for a very long time indeed, nothing to do with CO2. According to Phil Jones, there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995. That's 15 years. Around 1/2 of your usual "significant" timescale. It's not looking good for the hypothesis, is it?
Given that increased temperatures on Earth are associated with increased biodiversity, if the critters are going to start complaining, they should be more concerned with Human population increase, not carbon dioxide. Population and economic prosperity are somewhat correlated (the more wealthy the population, the fewer children couples have), you would surely agree that one solution to increasing population pressure is to make the poor richer. I don't think you'll be able to do that by replacing coal or gas fired power stations with a fucking windmill.
Where is this relentless warming? There's been no statistically significant warming since 1995. None of the models predicted that, did they? Why? Because they're wrong?
What evidence do you have that there's going to be a desert across the equator? I mean apart from the fact that the UK Met Office decided to change its map to show all landmasses as brown, rather than green (when I fly over the UK, it looks pretty ****ing green to me - what they did was very Orwellian, if I may say so). If equatorial desertification does happen, it will be due to population pressure, deforestation and agricultural practices, not AGW.
Is your comment satire?
Yes of course I do. They are in the business of successfully transferring money from the Government to their institution, so naturally they must append, "because of man-made Global Warming" to each and every grant proposal. But anyway, that doesn't change the facts and the facts are what we're interested in, surely?
Well, you see that's the thing. You can argue the case from both sides. Scientific research shows that, for example, wearing a cycling helmet makes no difference. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident. Likewise unless you're a hyper-power, or have a nice stash of nukes, your strong military may be a threat to others and therefore you may be more likely to be attacked, not less.
To my mind even if the case is made that there is going to be warming, the economic "cure" is far, far, worse than the illness (cost of adaptation). So let us assume the scientific case is made (I don't believe it is); the economics of mitigation are truly from the mad-house.
Again (I say `again' because I frequently make this point), this is the precautionary principle v the law of unintended consequences. For example, it may be the case that maintaining a strong army and large defence industry makes you more likely to engage in war, much like giving a child pads and a helmet will make him more likely to take greater risks when he rides his bicycle.
Policy stances on pissing into the wind make no difference on the direction the wind blows.
Please stop repeating the same old alarmist conjecture, hypothesis, unfounded speculation, stupefyingly idiotic model predictions and start actually going out and measuring real world data.
Yes, but I suppose I meant how much mass of gassy stuff (hydrogen mostly) in this general location would it require for it to collapse under gravity and eventually form a star. By star I mean a radiating body powered by nuclear fusion, prevented from blowing apart by the counter-acting force of gravity. I originally requested this mass in units of masses of Jupiter, given it's a lot easier to visualise than SI units. I'm guessing you can't form a star by simply twiddling the variables mass/density; you do need a certain amount of mass for the star to be viable over some period of time (let us say for the sake of argument, 1 Earth year :p).
What size does a planet have to be to become a star? Is it 3 x Jupiter?