When the technology has the capability of rendering tens to hundreds of square miles uninhabitable in the case of a major malfunction I'd rather err on the side of over-regulation.
Fortuitously here is a recent analysis of why the nuclear industry hasn't built any new plants since the 1970's. It's not peer reviewed but it does reference authoritative sources.
If there was any indication that Paul Revere had contemplated before his ride what he would say to the British if captured you would have a point. I've never seen anything that supports that. I put his statements to them down to bravado as much as anything.
I take my jury duty seriously. I've been called twice but never selected. But I wouldn't hesitate to ask for a deferral if it meant cancelling major plans I had made that weren't compatible jury service and I wouldn't hold it against Sarah Palin if she did too despite provocative headlines.
The media in general and the TV media in particular is pretty disgusting, isn't it? All they're after is the sensational headline with little thought to what's really important. I've given up on watching any television news unless it's a situation like the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis. Even then it starts getting repetitive after 15 minutes.
ACORN, LOL!. The only thing they've been guilty of in regards to elections is registering American citizens to vote that the Republican's don't want to have voting. I challenge you to prove otherwise (only actual convictions in a court of law accepted). The Bush II administration pushed their US Attorney's to prosecute voter fraud and they essentially found nothing. Considering ACORN is defunct as of April 2010 it's a moot point.
If you're requiring a picture ID for voting then the voter card should be that picture ID and should be provided free of charge. Otherwise it's a poll tax. Drivers licenses can be faked too you know.
I agree with you that protecting every citizen's right to vote and preventing voters fraud are paramount. But I'll be damned if I can find any substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud, just the occasional case involving only an individual. I also agree that faith in the integrity of the election system is more important than the winner Electronic voting without a paper ballot has sorely tested my faith in the system.
As I said, on the models I'm familiar with, like the GISS ModelE> , it doesn't matter so much where you start although it's better if your starting point is realistic. The +5 degrees of warming are not relative to the cold temperatures during the LIA but something like the mean temperature from 1900-1989 (I don't know if that's the baseline for the projection you're specifically referring to but it's undoubtedly something similar).
The current models are far from perfect, they're just the best thing we have at this time. They'll get better in the future.
It's stretching the facts pretty hard to make them fit her account of Paul Revere's ride. His purpose was to warn the locals about the advance of the British. Do you think he allowed himself to be captured just to warn the them? I think he would have rather finished the ride to warn Hamilton and Adams?
She's not even smart enough to get out of jury duty as so many comment on here at/. when the subject comes up. If she was really into the bus tour there's no doubt she could have got it deferred.
As far as I can see she's just a publicity hound trying to keep her name alive.
They've got to measure it against some baseline. MSL is commonly used in civil engineering for all sorts of things. It's not someone trying to make it sound scary, it's just a common usage.
No, what is really killing nuclear power is the cost and the fact that it can't be built (at least in the US) without government subsidies. When you include the lifetime costs nuclear is one of the more costly ways to generate electricity.
The verification of your right to vote should happen when you register to vote. If anyone anywhere could point to any serious voter fraud by people ineligible to vote in the last 20 years they'd get my attention. I've followed the subject fairly closely ever since 2000 and I've never seen anything other than one-zy/two-zy voter fraud and most of that by Republicans.
The ID's required are picture ID's. Most often that is either a drivers license or a passport. Many poor people and people who live in cities with decent public transportation have neither. That is definitely a Democratic leaning demographic.
As people get older they may give up renewing their drivers licenses so they're expired or as in one example I heard about in Indiana a bunch of nuns living in a convent who had been voting for decades were not allowed to vote after Indiana's ID law was passed because they didn't have any picture ID. Those two demographics may lean a bit Republican but it's hard to say.
If anyone ever documented illegal immigrants actually voting in any numbers I'd pay more attention to that meme. If I were illegal I'd want to avoid anything that might call attention to myself. I've heard about more voter fraud from Republican voters than I have from Democratic voters.
If you are going to require voters to have picture ID then you need to provide it free of charge in a way that is not a burden on them to get (like having to take time off from work, etc.). Otherwise it's essentially a poll tax.
I should have been clearer. If the ballot is printed by machine that machine is not counting the ballot, just printing it. The only thing that actually gets counted is the paper ballot that the voter has verified is an accurate reflection of their intention. If you use a scantron or some other machine to count ballots then they should be randomly audited by hand counting to verify that they are accurate.
If you are required to show ID when you vote then the only valid ID should be a voter card they issue you free of charge when you register to vote.
The reason that Republicans want you to show ID when you vote is to suppress the voting of people who are more likely to vote for Democrats. The level of voter fraud, that is people who are not eligible to vote voting, is so minuscule in this country it's not an issue. In Ohio in 2004 they looked for that and only found 4 out of millions of votes. Yes it could effect an election that comes down to 1 or 2 votes but how often does that happen?
Here in Oregon where all elections are vote-by-mail our "ID" is our signature on the outer envelope of the ballot. The inner envelope is generic and once they verify your signature against the digitized signature they got from your registration they separate the two envelopes. We have very few election problems in this state.
I don't care if they're printed by machine or filled out by hand but the end result should be a paper ballot that can be hand counted if necessary. Anything else is too easily manipulated. I'm not saying paper ballots can't be manipulated but it's far harder with them than with some electronic record.
I'm busy preparing for a week long whitewater rafting trip now to take the time to fully respond to you. I'll just make some comments.
At this point I don't really care what the AR1 said as it's been superseded by the AR4. The AR1 is over 20 years ago now and our knowledge has increased immensely since then.
An anomaly is just the temperature compared to a rather arbitrary base line like the mean temperature from 1961-1990 as is used on the Wikipedia Temperature Record page. Other graphs may use other baselines. The AR4 still has projections of how temperatures are expected to change given various scenarios.
We will certainly find out if the scientists are right in the next couple of decades. If the Sun does drop its output and we continue to warm as they are predicting that will be powerful evidence for their theory. And let me be clear, they're saying if the Sun's output does drop to a more historically normal level or even a low level the warming will slow for a while, maybe up to a decade, but it will not stop and will eventually speed up again.
"if we drop co2 production, climate change won't happen" is an extreme exaggeration of what they are saying. In the first place, it's already happening and that's well documented. What they are really saying is something like "the sooner and more drastically we curb the rise in greenhouse gases the better the final outcome will be".
You may be right about the political realities but I think over the next decade or two the realities of global warming will become more obvious to people and there will be political action. Probably later than it should be and not as strong as it should be but there will be action. We'll find out, won't we?
And we haven't even talked about ocean acidification which could be a serious problem as well.
You just want trick and hide the decline to mean more than they really do. The trick was just a mathematical technique to combine the proxy data and the instrument data into a smooth curve on the graph and hide the decline was fully explained in the peer reviewed publications they made on the subject.
I'll tell you what, you just throw out the data your talking about because they are only a small part of the totality of data from scientists on the subject. It wouldn't change the conclusions about global warming one bit if you ignored it.
Mann's original hockey stick graph may have gained iconic significance but there have been plenty of similar graphs produced since then by different researchers using different sets of proxies that all show pretty much the same thing as it does. You really ought to forget about Mann's 1988 graph and start attacking the more recent ones. It's ancient history now.
Well, most GCM model runs are not made starting before the instrument record cited in my previous post. And since the models are built on the physics of climate it doesn't matter that much where you start them or in theory how far off they are from reality when you do start them. They will converge on expected reality because that's what the physical computations demand. Of course the further off from reality you start them the longer that convergence will take.
The models are tested by predicting back to the past (called hindcasting) but they generally don't try to go back before the time we had reliable actual records to compare them against which is again, the mid 1800's. Sometimes they develop models to try and predict further back but since the further back you go the less actual data you have to compare them against the less reliable they are.
The comments I've seen from scientists regarding their hindcasting runs with GCM's seem to indicate they're not that bad at it.
Yes, I was wrong in the the Muir Russell report did mention "hide the decline". Sorry about that. Still it's a pretty minor indictment across the whole of what they investigated, the equivalent of a speeding ticket so I didn't pay that much attention to it.
The book was a science text book. The chapter also covered voluntary birth control, access to birth control and abortion among other things. You don't think that scientists in a textbook should lay out all of the possibilities without moral judgment and let the readers make up their own minds? Suppression of knowledge seldom works very well so you might as well get it all out in the open in my opinion.
The graph in question was cover art for a World Meteorological Organization report for 1999. It wasn't meant for publication in the technical literature. Here is a comment on it from RealClimate.
One example of this was the cover art on a WMO 1999 report which, until last November, was completely obscure (we are not aware of any mention of this report or this figure before November in any blogospheric discussion, ever). Nonetheless, in the way of these things, this figure is now described as ‘an icon’ in the Muir Russell report (one of their very few mistakes, how can something be an icon if no-one has ever seen it?). In retrospect (and as we stated last year) we agree with the Muir Russell report that the caption and description of the figure could indeed have been clearer, particularly with regard to the way proxy and instrumental data sources were spliced into a single curve, without indicating which was which. The WMO cover figure appears (at least to our knowledge) to be the only instance where that was done. Moving forward, nonetheless, it is advisable that scientists be as clear as possible about what sorts of procedures have gone into the preparation of a figure. But retrospective applications of evolving standards are neither fair nor useful.
So if you can find one instance where the splice of proxy and instrumental data wasn't properly documented in the peer reviewed literature you may have a point. Otherwise it's just much ado about nothing.
Phil Jones was a lead author along with Kevin Trenberth of 1 chapter out of 11 chapters in the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report and 44 chapters in the full report. The chapter was admittedly an important one: "Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change" but it's the only one that lists him as a contributor. That hardly makes PJ the head of the IPCC. Maybe I'm a little touchy about precision but that was just too far from reality for me to let go.
It's not an either/or thing. All weather events have an element of the global warming in them. Maybe they're only 5% stronger than they otherwise would have been because of GW but it adds up.
Slashdot Mirror
When the technology has the capability of rendering tens to hundreds of square miles uninhabitable in the case of a major malfunction I'd rather err on the side of over-regulation.
Fortuitously here is a recent analysis of why the nuclear industry hasn't built any new plants since the 1970's. It's not peer reviewed but it does reference authoritative sources.
I'm not your stalker :) DaveV0.1952
If there was any indication that Paul Revere had contemplated before his ride what he would say to the British if captured you would have a point. I've never seen anything that supports that. I put his statements to them down to bravado as much as anything.
I take my jury duty seriously. I've been called twice but never selected. But I wouldn't hesitate to ask for a deferral if it meant cancelling major plans I had made that weren't compatible jury service and I wouldn't hold it against Sarah Palin if she did too despite provocative headlines.
The media in general and the TV media in particular is pretty disgusting, isn't it? All they're after is the sensational headline with little thought to what's really important. I've given up on watching any television news unless it's a situation like the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis. Even then it starts getting repetitive after 15 minutes.
ACORN, LOL!. The only thing they've been guilty of in regards to elections is registering American citizens to vote that the Republican's don't want to have voting. I challenge you to prove otherwise (only actual convictions in a court of law accepted). The Bush II administration pushed their US Attorney's to prosecute voter fraud and they essentially found nothing. Considering ACORN is defunct as of April 2010 it's a moot point.
If you're requiring a picture ID for voting then the voter card should be that picture ID and should be provided free of charge. Otherwise it's a poll tax. Drivers licenses can be faked too you know.
I agree with you that protecting every citizen's right to vote and preventing voters fraud are paramount. But I'll be damned if I can find any substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud, just the occasional case involving only an individual. I also agree that faith in the integrity of the election system is more important than the winner Electronic voting without a paper ballot has sorely tested my faith in the system.
As I said, on the models I'm familiar with, like the GISS ModelE> , it doesn't matter so much where you start although it's better if your starting point is realistic. The +5 degrees of warming are not relative to the cold temperatures during the LIA but something like the mean temperature from 1900-1989 (I don't know if that's the baseline for the projection you're specifically referring to but it's undoubtedly something similar).
The current models are far from perfect, they're just the best thing we have at this time. They'll get better in the future.
It's stretching the facts pretty hard to make them fit her account of Paul Revere's ride. His purpose was to warn the locals about the advance of the British. Do you think he allowed himself to be captured just to warn the them? I think he would have rather finished the ride to warn Hamilton and Adams?
She's not even smart enough to get out of jury duty as so many comment on here at /. when the subject comes up. If she was really into the bus tour there's no doubt she could have got it deferred.
As far as I can see she's just a publicity hound trying to keep her name alive.
It might take 10 semi engines to drive the necessary generating power.
I do, 487 feet.
They've got to measure it against some baseline. MSL is commonly used in civil engineering for all sorts of things. It's not someone trying to make it sound scary, it's just a common usage.
No, what is really killing nuclear power is the cost and the fact that it can't be built (at least in the US) without government subsidies. When you include the lifetime costs nuclear is one of the more costly ways to generate electricity.
The verification of your right to vote should happen when you register to vote. If anyone anywhere could point to any serious voter fraud by people ineligible to vote in the last 20 years they'd get my attention. I've followed the subject fairly closely ever since 2000 and I've never seen anything other than one-zy/two-zy voter fraud and most of that by Republicans.
The ID's required are picture ID's. Most often that is either a drivers license or a passport. Many poor people and people who live in cities with decent public transportation have neither. That is definitely a Democratic leaning demographic.
As people get older they may give up renewing their drivers licenses so they're expired or as in one example I heard about in Indiana a bunch of nuns living in a convent who had been voting for decades were not allowed to vote after Indiana's ID law was passed because they didn't have any picture ID. Those two demographics may lean a bit Republican but it's hard to say.
If anyone ever documented illegal immigrants actually voting in any numbers I'd pay more attention to that meme. If I were illegal I'd want to avoid anything that might call attention to myself. I've heard about more voter fraud from Republican voters than I have from Democratic voters.
If you are going to require voters to have picture ID then you need to provide it free of charge in a way that is not a burden on them to get (like having to take time off from work, etc.). Otherwise it's essentially a poll tax.
I should have been clearer. If the ballot is printed by machine that machine is not counting the ballot, just printing it. The only thing that actually gets counted is the paper ballot that the voter has verified is an accurate reflection of their intention. If you use a scantron or some other machine to count ballots then they should be randomly audited by hand counting to verify that they are accurate.
If you are required to show ID when you vote then the only valid ID should be a voter card they issue you free of charge when you register to vote.
The reason that Republicans want you to show ID when you vote is to suppress the voting of people who are more likely to vote for Democrats. The level of voter fraud, that is people who are not eligible to vote voting, is so minuscule in this country it's not an issue. In Ohio in 2004 they looked for that and only found 4 out of millions of votes. Yes it could effect an election that comes down to 1 or 2 votes but how often does that happen?
Here in Oregon where all elections are vote-by-mail our "ID" is our signature on the outer envelope of the ballot. The inner envelope is generic and once they verify your signature against the digitized signature they got from your registration they separate the two envelopes. We have very few election problems in this state.
I don't care if they're printed by machine or filled out by hand but the end result should be a paper ballot that can be hand counted if necessary. Anything else is too easily manipulated. I'm not saying paper ballots can't be manipulated but it's far harder with them than with some electronic record.
I'm busy preparing for a week long whitewater rafting trip now to take the time to fully respond to you. I'll just make some comments.
At this point I don't really care what the AR1 said as it's been superseded by the AR4. The AR1 is over 20 years ago now and our knowledge has increased immensely since then.
An anomaly is just the temperature compared to a rather arbitrary base line like the mean temperature from 1961-1990 as is used on the Wikipedia Temperature Record page. Other graphs may use other baselines. The AR4 still has projections of how temperatures are expected to change given various scenarios.
We will certainly find out if the scientists are right in the next couple of decades. If the Sun does drop its output and we continue to warm as they are predicting that will be powerful evidence for their theory. And let me be clear, they're saying if the Sun's output does drop to a more historically normal level or even a low level the warming will slow for a while, maybe up to a decade, but it will not stop and will eventually speed up again.
"if we drop co2 production, climate change won't happen" is an extreme exaggeration of what they are saying. In the first place, it's already happening and that's well documented. What they are really saying is something like "the sooner and more drastically we curb the rise in greenhouse gases the better the final outcome will be".
You may be right about the political realities but I think over the next decade or two the realities of global warming will become more obvious to people and there will be political action. Probably later than it should be and not as strong as it should be but there will be action. We'll find out, won't we?
And we haven't even talked about ocean acidification which could be a serious problem as well.
You just want trick and hide the decline to mean more than they really do. The trick was just a mathematical technique to combine the proxy data and the instrument data into a smooth curve on the graph and hide the decline was fully explained in the peer reviewed publications they made on the subject.
I'll tell you what, you just throw out the data your talking about because they are only a small part of the totality of data from scientists on the subject. It wouldn't change the conclusions about global warming one bit if you ignored it.
Mann's original hockey stick graph may have gained iconic significance but there have been plenty of similar graphs produced since then by different researchers using different sets of proxies that all show pretty much the same thing as it does. You really ought to forget about Mann's 1988 graph and start attacking the more recent ones. It's ancient history now.
Well, most GCM model runs are not made starting before the instrument record cited in my previous post. And since the models are built on the physics of climate it doesn't matter that much where you start them or in theory how far off they are from reality when you do start them. They will converge on expected reality because that's what the physical computations demand. Of course the further off from reality you start them the longer that convergence will take.
The models are tested by predicting back to the past (called hindcasting) but they generally don't try to go back before the time we had reliable actual records to compare them against which is again, the mid 1800's. Sometimes they develop models to try and predict further back but since the further back you go the less actual data you have to compare them against the less reliable they are.
The comments I've seen from scientists regarding their hindcasting runs with GCM's seem to indicate they're not that bad at it.
As an intellectual exercise I have no problem with it.
It was good conversing with you. I learned some things. Good luck to both of us.
Yes, I was wrong in the the Muir Russell report did mention "hide the decline". Sorry about that. Still it's a pretty minor indictment across the whole of what they investigated, the equivalent of a speeding ticket so I didn't pay that much attention to it.
The book was a science text book. The chapter also covered voluntary birth control, access to birth control and abortion among other things. You don't think that scientists in a textbook should lay out all of the possibilities without moral judgment and let the readers make up their own minds? Suppression of knowledge seldom works very well so you might as well get it all out in the open in my opinion.
The graph in question was cover art for a World Meteorological Organization report for 1999. It wasn't meant for publication in the technical literature. Here is a comment on it from RealClimate.
One example of this was the cover art on a WMO 1999 report which, until last November, was completely obscure (we are not aware of any mention of this report or this figure before November in any blogospheric discussion, ever). Nonetheless, in the way of these things, this figure is now described as ‘an icon’ in the Muir Russell report (one of their very few mistakes, how can something be an icon if no-one has ever seen it?). In retrospect (and as we stated last year) we agree with the Muir Russell report that the caption and description of the figure could indeed have been clearer, particularly with regard to the way proxy and instrumental data sources were spliced into a single curve, without indicating which was which. The WMO cover figure appears (at least to our knowledge) to be the only instance where that was done. Moving forward, nonetheless, it is advisable that scientists be as clear as possible about what sorts of procedures have gone into the preparation of a figure. But retrospective applications of evolving standards are neither fair nor useful.
So if you can find one instance where the splice of proxy and instrumental data wasn't properly documented in the peer reviewed literature you may have a point. Otherwise it's just much ado about nothing.
Phil Jones was a lead author along with Kevin Trenberth of 1 chapter out of 11 chapters in the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report and 44 chapters in the full report. The chapter was admittedly an important one: "Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change" but it's the only one that lists him as a contributor. That hardly makes PJ the head of the IPCC. Maybe I'm a little touchy about precision but that was just too far from reality for me to let go.
LOL, I've been to BC & Alberta before. Beautiful country. I'd have to go get a passport now to go though.
It's not an either/or thing. All weather events have an element of the global warming in them. Maybe they're only 5% stronger than they otherwise would have been because of GW but it adds up.