Pffft. Since it's been clearly established that government is incapable of doing anything right, there's no way this is legitimate work by CSIRO.
They must have stolen the IP from Hedy Lamarr and is using it to browbeat good old American job creators into given up their hard-earned wealth.
Bloody Aussie socialists.
Have you read Hansen's 1988 paper? If you're asserting an error range of 20C, I'm guessing the answer is NO.
You mentioned "basic conceit" earlier. That seems to be the mother's milk of the denialist fringe, where you have scientists like Fred Singer who's opposed just about every public interest research, incl ( but not limited to ) smoking & cancer, acid rain, ozone depletion, and, of course, global warming.
Then there's Roy Spencer, the Limbaugh climatologist, whose conceit prevented him from realizing that, if his newfangled satellite readings so strongly contradicted the century-old thermometer measurements, then perhaps the new kid on the block was wrong? But overlook it he did, for 13 years.
Since he and John Christy were forced to correct their data, they've had to do so 6 more times, giving an overall significant positive increase in their readings.
Ah, you played the "religion" card - I see this done frequently by the stubbornly religious as it seems to be the only way they can make sense of those who don't share their world view.
Unlike the biblethumpers who harp over and over again of the revealed truth of some antiquated desert tribes, real scientists continue their work and struggle to work out the uncertainties and unknowns, even if that means their previous assumptions were incorrect.
About 3 years after his '88 testimony, Mount Pinatubo blew its lid and Hansen ran his climate model against that eruption as a test of its accuracy.
The model made 3 predictions that were verified - 1) about 0.5C cooling globally 2) lasting about 2 years 3) affecting primarily southern Europe and America.
Be careful playing the "unfalsifiable" trump - since that would mean that the anti-AGW hypotheses are ALSO unfalsifiable.
Leaving that aside, the foundations of the AGW observations can be falsified so if a significant number of them were clearly established then the overall idea would likely be wrong.
A greater concern is the level of chaotic complexity built into global climate as very, very small changes have the potential to cause dramatic shifts ( a real-world butterfly effect, if you will)
Have you actually read those links ( and all their comments )? It's quite amusing to see the infighting even among those who say Hansen was unforgivably wrong.
There are several things to take away from this:
1) The uncertainties / error bars have not been exceeded for Scenarios B & C
2) We still don't know as much as we'd like about the contributions of aerosols
3) Hansen's estimate of climate sensitivity was too high - which was the most significant problem with his scenarios
Climate sensitivity is STILL not definitively know but is likely to be around 2.7 - 3.0 whereas Hansen assumed 4.2 in that 1988 paper.
None of that discredits either his overall work or the AGW theory.
Hansen's 1988 paper gave 3 scenarios. Considering the limited models and relatively weak computing power of the time, his predictions were pretty darn good.
Pat Michaels, a disreputable cuss of a climatologist only showed the most extreme of Hansen's scenarios - the one that, back in 1988, Hansen said was least likely.
Real Climate gives a good critique and you should also read Hansen's followup paper of 2006
Turbines have problems but that isn't one of them. Even with radical improvements with efficiency, electrical use will grow over time unless we have a devastating collapse of society.
So building up ( and improving the electrical infrastructure ) is not a problem. And when some other super-fantastical energy source is commercialized, the grid will be ready.
For offshore turbines in salt water, there may be signficantly more maintenance involved. But nothing that would be a showstopper.
After all, this isn't groundbreaking - Denmark installed a 11 turbine farm over 20 yrs ago.
That said, replacing the huge blades / nacelles on modern turbines at sea could get really tricky - those steady winds and rough seas work against you when there's major maintenance.
Wrong. You're confusing instantaneous power and energy.
If you're so confident that the turbine will only output a quarter of its rated power, try hooking to wiring and a distribution system that can only handle 1.5 MW but use fuses rated for 5 MW.
They've delivered about 100 Renault Fluence ZEs in Israel, mostly to employees, and are nearly the official launch. They've deployed dozens of switch stations there, plus more in Denmark and lots of charge spots in several countries.
And switch stations are designed to specifically address the recharging problem.
Now it's possible that the venture will fail but that doesn't make it a scam.
You probably mean Bond Events as Dansgaard-Oeschgers happen during glacial periods.
And Bond Events are not always accompanied by definitive global climate change.
The global average temperature? That would change our world DRAMATICALLY.
The informed speculation is that we're on course for about 6C by 2100 - and that's considered catastrophic. I think the number is too high but even half of that would be a radical change on the global scale.
Mark Lynas / National Geographic made a book / film about that level of change but I haven't seen or read that yet.
That's why I cast a jaundiced eye towards those who think Ron Paul will swoop in and save them - he's a lifelong Republican and, overall, kowtows to the party line, although he's considerably more honest that the leading nutbars.
If he had real balls and struck out on his own, like Ross Perot did, I'd be a lot less critical.
That's what I was referring to. Apart from solving the Fab issues, I don't know what else AMD could have done.
They had ongoing problems with yields and there were initial problems with power consumption. I vaguely recall that you had to use either ( or both ) certified coolers or power supplies or the warranty was void.
Intel took FOREVER to get their version of Hypertransport and the Alpha-derived designs to market but once they did, with Nehalem, they've not looked back. If they ever revive and perfect Larrabee or absorb Nvidia, AMD might be forever consigned to the very bottom of the budget bin.
A few months ago, my team at work was looking for a decent dev box as we were tired of shoehorning Win2008 R2 onto older desktop PCs and one of the developers suggested the HP z210 workstation - for $2,000, we got a 3 X 1TB, 16GB, Core i7-2600k.
Damn, that box is FAST and QUIET. It sat running, case open, on my desk to a full workday and I couldn't hear the CPU fan.
I could have saved quite a bit of cash if I were allowed to buy OEM parts but the PHBs get all nervous if it's not all "HP-approved".
There was a time 8-12 years ago where it looked like AMD could have snatched the performance crown.
But, without the Fab expertise to match Chipzilla, it just never happened and nothing short of a fantastic screwup by Intel or an astonishing breakthrough by AMD will close the gap.
But, AMD has been rock-solid for my personal needs and make it so easy to keep migrating to newer CPUs / Mainboards that I haven't run an Intel desktop, at home, in 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Pffft. Since it's been clearly established that government is incapable of doing anything right, there's no way this is legitimate work by CSIRO. They must have stolen the IP from Hedy Lamarr and is using it to browbeat good old American job creators into given up their hard-earned wealth. Bloody Aussie socialists.
Have you read Hansen's 1988 paper? If you're asserting an error range of 20C, I'm guessing the answer is NO.
You mentioned "basic conceit" earlier. That seems to be the mother's milk of the denialist fringe, where you have scientists like Fred Singer who's opposed just about every public interest research, incl ( but not limited to ) smoking & cancer, acid rain, ozone depletion, and, of course, global warming.
Then there's Roy Spencer, the Limbaugh climatologist, whose conceit prevented him from realizing that, if his newfangled satellite readings so strongly contradicted the century-old thermometer measurements, then perhaps the new kid on the block was wrong? But overlook it he did, for 13 years.
Since he and John Christy were forced to correct their data, they've had to do so 6 more times, giving an overall significant positive increase in their readings.
Ah, you played the "religion" card - I see this done frequently by the stubbornly religious as it seems to be the only way they can make sense of those who don't share their world view. Unlike the biblethumpers who harp over and over again of the revealed truth of some antiquated desert tribes, real scientists continue their work and struggle to work out the uncertainties and unknowns, even if that means their previous assumptions were incorrect.
About 3 years after his '88 testimony, Mount Pinatubo blew its lid and Hansen ran his climate model against that eruption as a test of its accuracy. The model made 3 predictions that were verified - 1) about 0.5C cooling globally 2) lasting about 2 years 3) affecting primarily southern Europe and America.
Be careful playing the "unfalsifiable" trump - since that would mean that the anti-AGW hypotheses are ALSO unfalsifiable. Leaving that aside, the foundations of the AGW observations can be falsified so if a significant number of them were clearly established then the overall idea would likely be wrong.
A greater concern is the level of chaotic complexity built into global climate as very, very small changes have the potential to cause dramatic shifts ( a real-world butterfly effect, if you will)
Have you actually read those links ( and all their comments )? It's quite amusing to see the infighting even among those who say Hansen was unforgivably wrong. There are several things to take away from this: 1) The uncertainties / error bars have not been exceeded for Scenarios B & C 2) We still don't know as much as we'd like about the contributions of aerosols 3) Hansen's estimate of climate sensitivity was too high - which was the most significant problem with his scenarios Climate sensitivity is STILL not definitively know but is likely to be around 2.7 - 3.0 whereas Hansen assumed 4.2 in that 1988 paper. None of that discredits either his overall work or the AGW theory.
Considerably more so than the denialist talking heads that end up on Fox News.
Mod Parent Down. It doesn't matter how long a book of fairy tales from backwards desert tribes gets "studied". It's still hogwash.
Hansen's 1988 paper gave 3 scenarios. Considering the limited models and relatively weak computing power of the time, his predictions were pretty darn good.
Pat Michaels, a disreputable cuss of a climatologist only showed the most extreme of Hansen's scenarios - the one that, back in 1988, Hansen said was least likely. Real Climate gives a good critique and you should also read Hansen's followup paper of 2006
Turbines have problems but that isn't one of them. Even with radical improvements with efficiency, electrical use will grow over time unless we have a devastating collapse of society. So building up ( and improving the electrical infrastructure ) is not a problem. And when some other super-fantastical energy source is commercialized, the grid will be ready.
For offshore turbines in salt water, there may be signficantly more maintenance involved. But nothing that would be a showstopper. After all, this isn't groundbreaking - Denmark installed a 11 turbine farm over 20 yrs ago. That said, replacing the huge blades / nacelles on modern turbines at sea could get really tricky - those steady winds and rough seas work against you when there's major maintenance.
His username is "blindseer" - he lacks vision in more ways than one.
Wrong. You're confusing instantaneous power and energy.
If you're so confident that the turbine will only output a quarter of its rated power, try hooking to wiring and a distribution system that can only handle 1.5 MW but use fuses rated for 5 MW.
They've delivered about 100 Renault Fluence ZEs in Israel, mostly to employees, and are nearly the official launch. They've deployed dozens of switch stations there, plus more in Denmark and lots of charge spots in several countries. And switch stations are designed to specifically address the recharging problem. Now it's possible that the venture will fail but that doesn't make it a scam.
You probably mean Bond Events as Dansgaard-Oeschgers happen during glacial periods.
And Bond Events are not always accompanied by definitive global climate change.
The global average temperature? That would change our world DRAMATICALLY. The informed speculation is that we're on course for about 6C by 2100 - and that's considered catastrophic. I think the number is too high but even half of that would be a radical change on the global scale. Mark Lynas / National Geographic made a book / film about that level of change but I haven't seen or read that yet.
There's nothing normal about the weather patterns we're seeing - and it's going to get worse.
Take a good look at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png Look at the 1960s, look at the long term trend. A few hot years or some unbroken records are just a blip. albeit of some significance. But it's the GLOBAL trend, not periodic local extremes that are of deepening concern. Meterologist Stu Ostro stopped being a skeptic - here's his (very long) take on what changed his mind: http://i.imwx.com/web/multimedia/images/blog/StuOstro_GWweather_latestupdate.pdf
Give it time
It's becoming more and more clear that we're in for a rough ride - and we're all to blame.
The sad truth is that those who are least responsible will suffer the most.
The Ultimate Collection Of Winsock Software? Awesome and memorable name. Micro(computer)soft(ware)? Office? Lame.
You've clearly never read a press release from a software company
Looks like I pissed off some Ron-tards. Sucks to be you, boys. Go smoke your gold standard somewhere else.
One Fearful Yellow Eye
That's why I cast a jaundiced eye towards those who think Ron Paul will swoop in and save them - he's a lifelong Republican and, overall, kowtows to the party line, although he's considerably more honest that the leading nutbars. If he had real balls and struck out on his own, like Ross Perot did, I'd be a lot less critical.
It's a shame that comic book artist legend Neal Adams has bought into this bullshit.
That's what I was referring to. Apart from solving the Fab issues, I don't know what else AMD could have done. They had ongoing problems with yields and there were initial problems with power consumption. I vaguely recall that you had to use either ( or both ) certified coolers or power supplies or the warranty was void. Intel took FOREVER to get their version of Hypertransport and the Alpha-derived designs to market but once they did, with Nehalem, they've not looked back. If they ever revive and perfect Larrabee or absorb Nvidia, AMD might be forever consigned to the very bottom of the budget bin. A few months ago, my team at work was looking for a decent dev box as we were tired of shoehorning Win2008 R2 onto older desktop PCs and one of the developers suggested the HP z210 workstation - for $2,000, we got a 3 X 1TB, 16GB, Core i7-2600k. Damn, that box is FAST and QUIET. It sat running, case open, on my desk to a full workday and I couldn't hear the CPU fan. I could have saved quite a bit of cash if I were allowed to buy OEM parts but the PHBs get all nervous if it's not all "HP-approved".
There was a time 8-12 years ago where it looked like AMD could have snatched the performance crown. But, without the Fab expertise to match Chipzilla, it just never happened and nothing short of a fantastic screwup by Intel or an astonishing breakthrough by AMD will close the gap. But, AMD has been rock-solid for my personal needs and make it so easy to keep migrating to newer CPUs / Mainboards that I haven't run an Intel desktop, at home, in 10 years.