The cold in question is in the stratosphere, not the troposphere. It hasn't been particularly cold on the surface
Polar amplification (faster warming of the polar troposphere) and stratospheric cooling are both successful predictions of the much maligned climate models. By successful I mean they were found in 1980's models and have since been observed in the real world.
Stratospheric cooling has something to do with pressure, I don't fully understand the physics but it goes something like this....A GHG molecule in the stratosphere can travel a further distance before hitting another atom/molecule and is therefore more likely to lose energy by emitting absorbed photons into space rather than passing the energy to another particle via a collision (heat)....As I said I don't fully understand the mechanism so corrections/expansions to my description are welcome.
Of course psudeo-skeptics such as Bob Carter dishonestly use stratospheric temperature records to claim the surface is cooling.
I don't agree with turning food into fuel on a large scale but the spike in food prices has more to do with the Russian's stopping all wheat exports due to drought last year, also drought here in Oz has seen our harvests down by 50% for all but a couple of seasons since 1998. Russia and Australia are the 1st and 4th largest exporters of wheat respectively and together they have far more influence on the price of bread than US ethanol lobbyists.
Your post reminded me of a quote from Sagan's book "Demon Haunted World (Subtitled: Science as a candle in the dark)";
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United State is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
I hope the Australian authorities take as firm a line with it as the UK authorities did with MediaCAT/ACS:Law
I think they already know our courts will be about as sympathetic as the UK courts. This is how they treated AFACT when they tried to force iiNet to do their dirty work, note the bottom line; "Justice Cowdroy found in favour of iiNet, dismissing the case with costs"
The entire internet is copyright by default, how does one determine what is or isn't "unauthorised"? The problem is, and always has been, uploading, and even though that is what killed Kaza, no ordinary file-sharer has ever been dragged into an Aussie court.
Looks like this group's skipping the "letter" approach and going direct to the "subpeona" method.
As I said, "good luck getting one", your quote from TFA is standard MAFIAA FUD, it's an executive quoting the opinion of his own company lawyer about the possibility of setting an Australian legal precedent, look at the ifs, buts, and maybes, they know they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell.
You have a problem in the US which the MAFIAA have tried and failed to import to Oz. This new group are not doing anything that AFACT hasn't been doing for years, so it's kinda silly to expect anything other than failure.
Aussie's already have a time-tested method of dealing with these parasites, we ignore them. Downloading copyright material is NOT illegal in Australia and this new front group will have as much success as AFACT has had in the past when it has tried the same thing; a few ISP's will pass on the letter, no ISP will give out customer information (it's illegal to do so without a court order, good luck getting one), not one individual has ever been sued.
You made the bald assertion this particular headline was misleading - so far you have not put any hair on that assertion. So lets break it up to see what we can find...
'First Irish case' - Unattributed quote not discussed in TFA, it's a bald assertion, the reason it's in quotes is to indicate it is not the BBC who are claiming it as fact.
of death - He's dead, an unfortunate fact.
by spontaneous combustion - That was the coroner's official finding as to the cause of death, a sensational fact, but still a fact.
In what way did any of the above facts mislead you?
No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.
And neither is the BBC. - The coroner brought down the verdict of "spontaneous combustion" that appears in the headline and the BBC correctly defined what that means in the context of a coroner's inquest. They quote the coroner as saying - "This fire was thoroughly investigated and I'm left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation."
Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC)
There's nothing misleading about it, unless of course you're looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit...
Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.
The fact that they could (and still can) create garbage and pass it off as perfume was a "failure of management", by that I mean banks lobbying for, and politicians agreeing to, the removal of regulation.
Yes but there is one little thing everyone seems to be missing...this will KILL PEOPLE DEAD and that is NOT any 'guessing" or "estimates" or anything else but a cold hard fact.
No, that's a steaming pile of bullshit. The US signed a treaty** along with 194 other nations to remove CFC's from inhalers by the 1st Jan 2010, most of the other nations have already done this, including my country. The cold hard facts are, it hasn't killed anyone and inhaler prices did not triple.
**
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.
The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.
In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would *anyone* involved in something as sensitive as WikiLeaks trust a webmail provider of any kind, or any third-party email storage?
Good question, but what makes you think he used it for WL stuff?
Wow - equating odour with intellect.
Thanks for the link, I've found the SS site to be very informative in the past.
Ditto, a lot of the time I don't use 'em all up since I prefer commenting to moderating.
Stop making connections
The cold in question is in the stratosphere, not the troposphere. It hasn't been particularly cold on the surface
Polar amplification (faster warming of the polar troposphere) and stratospheric cooling are both successful predictions of the much maligned climate models. By successful I mean they were found in 1980's models and have since been observed in the real world.
Stratospheric cooling has something to do with pressure, I don't fully understand the physics but it goes something like this....A GHG molecule in the stratosphere can travel a further distance before hitting another atom/molecule and is therefore more likely to lose energy by emitting absorbed photons into space rather than passing the energy to another particle via a collision (heat)....As I said I don't fully understand the mechanism so corrections/expansions to my description are welcome.
Of course psudeo-skeptics such as Bob Carter dishonestly use stratospheric temperature records to claim the surface is cooling.
What does it mean to base political decisions on Science?
It means you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I don't agree with turning food into fuel on a large scale but the spike in food prices has more to do with the Russian's stopping all wheat exports due to drought last year, also drought here in Oz has seen our harvests down by 50% for all but a couple of seasons since 1998. Russia and Australia are the 1st and 4th largest exporters of wheat respectively and together they have far more influence on the price of bread than US ethanol lobbyists.
Reading the primary source is cheating, you're supposed to be outraged, not curious.
Your post reminded me of a quote from Sagan's book "Demon Haunted World (Subtitled: Science as a candle in the dark)";
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United State is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
Regulation is what got us in the financial mess to begin with.....Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Proof that the invisible hand will eagerly provide a whip for your self flagellation.
I hope the Australian authorities take as firm a line with it as the UK authorities did with MediaCAT/ACS:Law
I think they already know our courts will be about as sympathetic as the UK courts. This is how they treated AFACT when they tried to force iiNet to do their dirty work, note the bottom line; "Justice Cowdroy found in favour of iiNet, dismissing the case with costs"
Citation please?
The entire internet is copyright by default, how does one determine what is or isn't "unauthorised"? The problem is, and always has been, uploading, and even though that is what killed Kaza, no ordinary file-sharer has ever been dragged into an Aussie court.
Looks like this group's skipping the "letter" approach and going direct to the "subpeona" method.
As I said, "good luck getting one", your quote from TFA is standard MAFIAA FUD, it's an executive quoting the opinion of his own company lawyer about the possibility of setting an Australian legal precedent, look at the ifs, buts, and maybes, they know they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell.
You have a problem in the US which the MAFIAA have tried and failed to import to Oz. This new group are not doing anything that AFACT hasn't been doing for years, so it's kinda silly to expect anything other than failure.
PS: Australia's economy is in great shape.
Aussie's already have a time-tested method of dealing with these parasites, we ignore them. Downloading copyright material is NOT illegal in Australia and this new front group will have as much success as AFACT has had in the past when it has tried the same thing; a few ISP's will pass on the letter, no ISP will give out customer information (it's illegal to do so without a court order, good luck getting one), not one individual has ever been sued.
Yes, that is the formula that Fourier came up with in 1824 that predicted CO2 would be a GHG, Tyndal confirmed it by experiment.
you feel your atheism gives you superior morality
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
everyone wants kids to be educated properly
Not really, religious fundies don't want educated children, they want obedient children.
You made the bald assertion this particular headline was misleading - so far you have not put any hair on that assertion. So lets break it up to see what we can find...
'First Irish case' - Unattributed quote not discussed in TFA, it's a bald assertion, the reason it's in quotes is to indicate it is not the BBC who are claiming it as fact.
of death - He's dead, an unfortunate fact.
by spontaneous combustion - That was the coroner's official finding as to the cause of death, a sensational fact, but still a fact.
In what way did any of the above facts mislead you?
Sensationalising headlines like this is deceptive
This particular headline is factual, you may find the facts sensational, but there's no such thing as a deceptive fact.
It's well known that the BBC have a left wing bias.
The BBC is both praised and attacked by all sides of politics. It's you're own political bias that's on display here.
No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.
And neither is the BBC. - The coroner brought down the verdict of "spontaneous combustion" that appears in the headline and the BBC correctly defined what that means in the context of a coroner's inquest. They quote the coroner as saying - "This fire was thoroughly investigated and I'm left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation."
Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC)
There's nothing misleading about it, unless of course you're looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit...
Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.
The fact that they could (and still can) create garbage and pass it off as perfume was a "failure of management", by that I mean banks lobbying for, and politicians agreeing to, the removal of regulation.
Yes but there is one little thing everyone seems to be missing...this will KILL PEOPLE DEAD and that is NOT any 'guessing" or "estimates" or anything else but a cold hard fact.
No, that's a steaming pile of bullshit. The US signed a treaty** along with 194 other nations to remove CFC's from inhalers by the 1st Jan 2010, most of the other nations have already done this, including my country. The cold hard facts are, it hasn't killed anyone and inhaler prices did not triple.
** To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.
The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.
In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
Ronald Reagan The White House December 21, 1987
No. You need to learn how to recognise a quote.
Meh, they have them everywhere in Victoria too.