It should also be noted that the 2350 figure is for ALL the ice to melt. Considering roughly a quater of the world's population rely on these glaciers for water there will be severe consequences well before it's all gone.
"The question is, would they tell us -- the general public -- if any of them were a real threat?"
Of course they would, but then the general public will also be told by..
Corporate lobbyists: Asteroids don't exist and these hacked emails prove it.
Greenpeace: Minning companies altered it's orbit so as to get their hands on the minerals.
Politicians: Dear voter, I think the same way about this issue as you do, whatever that may be.
BP: For $2 billion we can put a hat on it.
Obama: That's a mighty fine hat.
Bush: Heck of a job there BP.
Christians: Pack your bags, here comes the rapture.
Muslims: Pack your bags, here come the virgins.
Jews: I can see the promised land in my telescope.
Myans: We told you so.
New age mystics: There's a herbal remedy available for ass-ter-oids.
"Maybe I have made a simple math error, but from looking at data from the IPCC, the actual percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 0.0038 (380 parts per million)."
That's correct.
"I don't see much of a correlation there. The temperature increase is simply far too high."
Instead of guessing, how about doing the math using Fourier's well established 1824 equation that he derived while he was inventing spectral analysis...
RF=5.35ln(380/280) = 1.6 Watts/M^2.
This translates to an equilibrium change of ~1.4degC given our current understanding of climate sensitivty. Note that this is the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval, the upper bound is a lot less certain due to our incomplete understanding of feedbacks.
Observations do not show the full 1.4C change, we have not reached the equibrium temprature yet due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans and ice caps. A more familiar and more rapid example of thermal inertia can be observed with the seasons, ie the warmest weather is at the end of summer not at the summer solstice.
As for predictions of future warming here are some numbers to help you calculate your own. It's estimated that we have added half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution and that we will double that figure in the next 40yrs. About 60% of what we have released so far has subsequently been absorbed by the ocean but that cannot continue indefinitely since the ocean will eventually turn to soda-pop (carbolic acid) and stop absorbing CO2.
8 mo. of the harshest winter for 30 years = press says "weather".
4 we. of the hottest summer for 30 years = press says "global warming, doom, hellfire".
I have no problem with either explanation, but it sure should be consistent.
Your consistentcy problems are caused by looking to the press for an explaination rather than climatescientists. Climate is the long term statistics of weather and due to the signal to noise ratio it takes a couple of decades worth of data to observe a trend with high confidence. If you really do want a detailed and robust scientific explaination of what is causing the observed trend, then read the IPCC's WG1 report. Be warned the WG1 is heavy going but with the amount of layman-freindly explainations and commentry available directly from scientists and scientific institutions there really is no reason to allow the press to keep you ignorant and confused about the basics. If you don't know where to look then start with WP, it will give you a good run down of the science and the anti-science. If it's too much of a bother to read beyond the MSM then IMHO you should extend that apathy toward posting on the subject.
If the same post was talking about evolution in the same uneducated manner it would be modded to oblivion, but because it's from a climate-creationists it's "insightfull".
Like most animals they become aggressive if they think they are cornered. My wife's idiot uncle decided it was a good idea to throw rocks at a large tiger snake that was already trying to get away by sqeezing under a log, he got the shock of his life when the snake turned around and chased him. But I agree tiger snakes are no more aggressive than other species.
Everyone is different, I have one friend who gets the shakes and can't sleep if she drinks more than two cups in a day. I drink 8-10 cups a day during the week and often go without on weekends without any problems. I can also drink it straight before going to sleep. OTOH one glass of wine with lunch will put me to sleep for the rest of the day.
"The reason people kill snakes is because of the known history of people dying of snakebite."
Here in Oz most people are bitten while trying to attack the snake, not the other way around.
If they are not on your front porch then it's much safer to forget the macho shit and simply live and let live. They may not be harmless but they are certainly shy creatures by nature, most of the time you can scare them away simply by stomping your feet on the ground from a safe distance. Do not throw rocks at a tiger snake unless you can sprint at 35mph.
"But its not being implemented at the behest of the US Government. Apparently, its not in China either, yet"
Indeed!
The headline claims: "New Chinese Rule Requires Real Names Online"
The first line of the summary says: "...a leading Chinese Internet regulator is calling for new rules requiring people to use their real names online".
So which is it? - Required, or someone thinks it should be required?
I know China censor their net but I'm sick and tired of this sort of journalistic hyperbole. It happens with everything, read any story on the Aussie internet and it sounds like I'm living in NK, except in reality none of what Conroy is "calling for" has been implemented and it will probably stay that way.
Vigillance is a GoodThingTM but the bullshit tsumami that occurs every time some random official opens their mouth is fucking childish.
B.F. Skinner did some very interesting experiments with pigeons. He kept them hungry and put them in a cage with a food dispenser that would dispense a food pellet at random intervals (with a known average interval). When the pellet dropped the bird would instinctively connect it with some random movement it had made just prior to the food appearing. It would then repeat that movement over and over again until another pellet dropped. Since it did not work every time the bird would also connect other random movements to the food. Over time the bird joined these random movements together in an intricate dance that it would perfom in front of the dispenser. The interesting part is that once the time taken to perform the dance was as long as the average interval between random pellets the birds did not change their routine, since they were almost certain to get the reward within two repetions. Once the bird was at this point it would dogmatically stick with same the dance even if the dispenser was turned off or the average interval changed.
It's my contention that most of the mundane daily rituals we humans perform, (including what we choose to read), are initially developed in the same manner.
"It also requires an environment where we are not penalized for admitting a mistake. E.g. discussion on Internet forums such as Slashdot is nothing like that."
From my experience, on the handfull of occasions I have used the phrase "I was wrong" on slashdot I have been modded up, I also have a habit of modding up others who do the same. Having said that, it is a rare occurance - a quick google for I was worng on slashdot gets only ~12K hits out of ~33 million comments.
Slashdot Mirror
"Listen, USA spends more than how many nations combined on "defense" ?"
All of them.
It should also be noted that the 2350 figure is for ALL the ice to melt. Considering roughly a quater of the world's population rely on these glaciers for water there will be severe consequences well before it's all gone.
"When it comes to size you have to stop thinking about the Earth, 12,752km diameter, and think about the atmosphere, 90% within 50km of surface."
And most (but not all) of the stuff that affects climate happens in the troposphere (bottom 5km).
"The question is, would they tell us -- the general public -- if any of them were a real threat?"
Of course they would, but then the general public will also be told by..
Corporate lobbyists: Asteroids don't exist and these hacked emails prove it.
Greenpeace: Minning companies altered it's orbit so as to get their hands on the minerals.
Politicians: Dear voter, I think the same way about this issue as you do, whatever that may be.
BP: For $2 billion we can put a hat on it.
Obama: That's a mighty fine hat.
Bush: Heck of a job there BP.
Christians: Pack your bags, here comes the rapture.
Muslims: Pack your bags, here come the virgins.
Jews: I can see the promised land in my telescope.
Myans: We told you so.
New age mystics: There's a herbal remedy available for ass-ter-oids.
There is a definite need for a "non-sequitur" mod for climate related stories.
"Maybe I have made a simple math error, but from looking at data from the IPCC, the actual percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 0.0038 (380 parts per million)."
That's correct.
"I don't see much of a correlation there. The temperature increase is simply far too high."
Instead of guessing, how about doing the math using Fourier's well established 1824 equation that he derived while he was inventing spectral analysis...
RF=5.35ln(380/280) = 1.6 Watts/M^2.
This translates to an equilibrium change of ~1.4degC given our current understanding of climate sensitivty. Note that this is the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval, the upper bound is a lot less certain due to our incomplete understanding of feedbacks.
Observations do not show the full 1.4C change, we have not reached the equibrium temprature yet due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans and ice caps. A more familiar and more rapid example of thermal inertia can be observed with the seasons, ie the warmest weather is at the end of summer not at the summer solstice.
As for predictions of future warming here are some numbers to help you calculate your own. It's estimated that we have added half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution and that we will double that figure in the next 40yrs. About 60% of what we have released so far has subsequently been absorbed by the ocean but that cannot continue indefinitely since the ocean will eventually turn to soda-pop (carbolic acid) and stop absorbing CO2.
A summary of your link using an analogy: Grass is green therefore the sky cannot be blue.
"Just... go fuck a goat, you pessimistic bastard."
On a more optomistic note, if people keep ignoring environmental problems there will be plenty of goats
Your anti-environment rant is every bit as absurd as Greenpeace's campaign against chlorination - that's quite an acomplishment.
Thanks, been looking for something to read :)
8 mo. of the harshest winter for 30 years = press says "weather". 4 we. of the hottest summer for 30 years = press says "global warming, doom, hellfire".
I have no problem with either explanation, but it sure should be consistent.
Your consistentcy problems are caused by looking to the press for an explaination rather than climate scientists. Climate is the long term statistics of weather and due to the signal to noise ratio it takes a couple of decades worth of data to observe a trend with high confidence. If you really do want a detailed and robust scientific explaination of what is causing the observed trend, then read the IPCC's WG1 report. Be warned the WG1 is heavy going but with the amount of layman-freindly explainations and commentry available directly from scientists and scientific institutions there really is no reason to allow the press to keep you ignorant and confused about the basics. If you don't know where to look then start with WP, it will give you a good run down of the science and the anti-science. If it's too much of a bother to read beyond the MSM then IMHO you should extend that apathy toward posting on the subject.
If the same post was talking about evolution in the same uneducated manner it would be modded to oblivion, but because it's from a climate-creationists it's "insightfull".
Does it go "ding" when the crowd is dispersed?
3000 sq feet ~ 278 sq meters. Sqrt(278) ~ 16.7
Like most animals they become aggressive if they think they are cornered. My wife's idiot uncle decided it was a good idea to throw rocks at a large tiger snake that was already trying to get away by sqeezing under a log, he got the shock of his life when the snake turned around and chased him. But I agree tiger snakes are no more aggressive than other species.
Forking awsome post.
Everyone is different, I have one friend who gets the shakes and can't sleep if she drinks more than two cups in a day. I drink 8-10 cups a day during the week and often go without on weekends without any problems. I can also drink it straight before going to sleep. OTOH one glass of wine with lunch will put me to sleep for the rest of the day.
You're welcome at my place, but stay off the lawn and bring your own spliffs.
You believe that BP faked the oil accident? Great! I thought I was the only one.
Now we just need to figure out why they would do such a thing.
It's obvious: Drive the stock down and buy back the company for pennies. /Muuuuuhahahaha!
Hint to mods - it's a joke!
If you're an Aussie then you should know the conventional wisdom is to leave them alone unless they are in your yard.
"The reason people kill snakes is because of the known history of people dying of snakebite."
Here in Oz most people are bitten while trying to attack the snake, not the other way around.
If they are not on your front porch then it's much safer to forget the macho shit and simply live and let live. They may not be harmless but they are certainly shy creatures by nature, most of the time you can scare them away simply by stomping your feet on the ground from a safe distance. Do not throw rocks at a tiger snake unless you can sprint at 35mph.
"But its not being implemented at the behest of the US Government. Apparently, its not in China either, yet"
Indeed!
The headline claims: "New Chinese Rule Requires Real Names Online"
The first line of the summary says: "...a leading Chinese Internet regulator is calling for new rules requiring people to use their real names online".
So which is it? - Required, or someone thinks it should be required?
I know China censor their net but I'm sick and tired of this sort of journalistic hyperbole. It happens with everything, read any story on the Aussie internet and it sounds like I'm living in NK, except in reality none of what Conroy is "calling for" has been implemented and it will probably stay that way.
Vigillance is a GoodThingTM but the bullshit tsumami that occurs every time some random official opens their mouth is fucking childish.
B.F. Skinner did some very interesting experiments with pigeons. He kept them hungry and put them in a cage with a food dispenser that would dispense a food pellet at random intervals (with a known average interval). When the pellet dropped the bird would instinctively connect it with some random movement it had made just prior to the food appearing. It would then repeat that movement over and over again until another pellet dropped. Since it did not work every time the bird would also connect other random movements to the food. Over time the bird joined these random movements together in an intricate dance that it would perfom in front of the dispenser. The interesting part is that once the time taken to perform the dance was as long as the average interval between random pellets the birds did not change their routine, since they were almost certain to get the reward within two repetions. Once the bird was at this point it would dogmatically stick with same the dance even if the dispenser was turned off or the average interval changed.
It's my contention that most of the mundane daily rituals we humans perform, (including what we choose to read), are initially developed in the same manner.
"It also requires an environment where we are not penalized for admitting a mistake. E.g. discussion on Internet forums such as Slashdot is nothing like that."
From my experience, on the handfull of occasions I have used the phrase "I was wrong" on slashdot I have been modded up, I also have a habit of modding up others who do the same. Having said that, it is a rare occurance - a quick google for I was worng on slashdot gets only ~12K hits out of ~33 million comments.