Dude, you have read one too many Michael Chriton books. Politicians and their pet pundits are leading you around by the nose, you rant about a lack of adherence to the scienctific method yet there's not a single scrap of science in your post, just more unsupported conspiracy drivel.
"But maybe that's what you meant about politics and clear thinking?"
No. Never heard of Mullis', [google] hmmm impressive Nobel Prize. He thinks there is nothing linking HIV to AIDS other than a strong correlation ---hang on---- isn't that basically true of any virus and it's symptoms? Reading further he belives this means that AIDS is not transmitted by HIV.....Now I am starting to see why other equally impressive Nobel laureates would chuck him out of a meeting.
Nobody enjoys listening to people state the obvious in support of willfull ignorance, sadly over the hill Nobel laureates do it just as regularly as politically myopic laymen. Science informs politics not the other way around as you seem to believe. If you can't get your head around that then I feel sorry for you sitting inside that political cage of your own making.
"Since it's nearly impossible to get funding for any sort of climat change project unless you're narrowly in line with consensus a ton of money has been wasted on basically masturbatory modeling.
Maybe it's not a complete waste after all, it does serve as an anecdote to help your brain shake off that politics thing. Unless of course you can point to an enduring global consensus among the world's scientists that recomends policy makers should look at giant sprinklers?
That's the problem with politics, it's like a brain tumour that sucks away any awareness of the contradictions coming from your own mouth.
Yes, it would be a lot colder without water vapour, but water vapour in the atmosphere has more or less reached it's saturation point and has left huge puddles in the form of oceans. As far Earth's climate is concerened, water is a feedback not a forcing. When something forces the temprature of the atmosphere to change (eg CO2 emmisions) the saturation point will change and water vapour will amplify the change in both directions by increasing/decreasing to the new saturation point.
In other words you need to change either the temprature or pressure of the atmosphere as a whole for it to hold more water vapuor. You can't pump significant amounts into the atmosphere without it falling out as rain/dew elsewhere over the next few days. As for dissipating heat into space, water vapour rarely gets higher than a jet liner since the temp/pressure thing makes it form clouds and it falls down again. Even if the sprinklers blast the vapour directly into space there is that conservation of enery detail to think about.
Although I support pure research I find it sad that someone let this guy have time on a supercomputer to play with his idea.
I think you are mixing up a couple of things, I think the recent clerical error from NSIC on Artic sea ice is what you are reffering to. The error was picked up within a day of the data release.
Funny how climate scientists don't dispute that cosmic rays may have SOME affect on clouds.
Funny how the proponents of the so called "Iris theory" fail to answer the obvious question. ie: There is no observable trend in cosmic rays since we started measuring them, so by what mechanisim does a LACK of trend in cosmic rays cause any trend in cloud cover?
Funny how some people ignore the fact that the role of CO2 in warming the Earth has been demonstrated experimentally time and time again for about a century now.
Yes the media have concentrated on sea level rise, it will be a big problem in places like Bangladesh and will cause large migrations. Having said that I agree with you, wet feet is the least of our concerns. The sacry affects can already be seen in Australia's Murry-Darling river basin (our bread-basket), for 8 or 9 of the last 10yrs our harvest has been down by ~50%. Of course the Murry has huge land management problems but the steady northward shift in rainfall patterns is the straw that's breaking it's back.
Rather than demanding simplistic answers that fit their politcs, scientists put error bars on things that are uncertain such as clouds. Clouds are not ignored they are simply not well understood, the affect of cosmic rays on clouds is even LESS well understood and like the Hadley center, I fail to see how a lack of an observable trend in cosmic rays results in an observable trend in clouds. Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.
Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments that have been debunked to death.
BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.
Most of that rise was in the last half of the century and is due to thermal expansion not melting ice. BTW: anthropogenic warming was first proposed about 100yrs ago.
I'm not saying the kid won't have nighmares if they come across tubgirl, I'm sure many adults do, but it won't leave a scar any worse than rubbing capsicum juice into their eyes (as one of mine did).
A parent should know their kid well enough to spot an "unhealthy" obsession and show some trust and encouragement for "healty" obsessions. How parents judge what is "healthy" and how much they trust their kids varies widely, the root of many a 'scar' is when that judgement is too far our of whack with reality, society, and in many cases yesterday's judgement of what was/is "healthy".
A scar is something that last a life time, major trauma or extended abuse would do it, but not the temporary shock/neusea the average human feels when confronted with shocking images, the images are shocking to adults because most of us don't like to be reminded we are organic, we have a what seems a reflex response to grimmace and turn away, but it's a largely learned response that's pretty much set in place by about age seven. To a kid (under 7) everything is new and they go through phases of being delighted and scared by new things according to their recent experiences with "new things" and their parents/sibling reaction to them.
I not a doctor but at 50 I have seen my share of daily horror. Smell is what gets more more than any other sense, but for people who find sight is their most sensitive sense of repulsion it takes a strong stomach to watch this documentary on autopsy. Tubgirl and autopy images may burn your retinas but thay are not going to cause a lasting 'sacr' to a kid unless they already have serious problems.
Every parent has their own problems and the vast majority of the (custodial) parents really belive they are bringing their kids up "right", so my question is - who is responsible for breeding the arseholes I keep chasing off my lawn?
"There are things easily found on the internet that can seriously damage the psyche and development of a child."
Outside of a war zone the biggest threat to a child's "phyche and development" is still the parents behviour. The OP's comment is in my mind spot on, my own kid ran a BBS in the late 80's when he was 11-12, perhaps he had some porn on there, craked games, or whatever, I don't know. Whatever it was, it motivated him to learn a hell of a lot about computers and it may have even taught him something about the real world.
BTW: My son is now 28, has two houses and a secure well paid job installing networks.
That was supposed to say "still take it in subconsiously", ie: you can go out of your way to ignore them but not to the point where you fool yourself into thinking they don't exist.
"...that's the reason I don't want targeted advertising (yeah, I mean you Google) because ads are a lot easier to completely ignore if they're totally irrelevant."
Exactly, after a decade or so I have trained my brain to ignore all the flashing colours and movement, but when they name my suburb my stupid brain picks it up and points my eyes that way, I keep telling it not to do that but it's a slow learner....(oooh look a woman jogging past the study window....shut-up brain, I'm thinking).
I don't mind huge posters and oversized TV's on buildings but I really hate free standing billboards, especially out in the bush. Fortunately they are less common these days but those that remain are an eyesore, I wouldn't mind one bit if my tax dollars were spent tearing each and every one of them down and installing a couple of trees and a picnic table.
"My money does earn when it's sitting in the bank."
I think you will find that the bank has lent your money to someone else at a better rate than what they are paying you.
"The problem with your line of thought is that its logical conclusion is that money has to keep moving in order to be useful, which is exactly what got us into this whole mess."
No it didn't get us into the mess, what you're describing IS the mess. That's why it's called a credit FREEZE - ie: money stopped going round because banks stopped trusting each other.
Scratching the surface of any political story reveals it's onion like nature and that is a layer I didn't know about.
"I would be very careful in this area; the filter might not be as dead as you think"
I'm not perturbed by being wrong in my pet political theories, I'm just trying to peel back a few layers and think a good theory needs testing. However in this case I really do hope you're wrong, not the least because if I am wrong that means I will feel compelled to get off my arse and make it 7001 protesters.
Personally I think kiddie porn (ie: pre-pubecent children) should come under the relm of evidence of a crime, idealy the privacy of the child demands that they should in some way control with the force of law what happens to any images found after the network is shut down. I have no objection to law enforcement getting a warrant and spying on kiddie porn sites even if it's to enforce a default control for the child. IMHO the pratice of allowing kiddie porn to linger on the net combined with international cooperation (interpol, fbi, etc) to understand the social-networks has done more to bust rock spiders than it has to breed them. I also don't see viewing kidde porn and snuff movies as purely a thought crime, I see it as creating a market for the worst kind of criminals.
A little OT but did you notice the story about the guy who lost his appeal in the simpsons porn case, I read a few articles and they were all the same, where was the rest of the story? - Why was he searched and arrested in the first place? Why no google hits on the original arrest, court case, etc? - A few days later and a major international kiddie porn ring is simultaneously busted here and in a bunch of other countries, my theory is most people will only remeber the simpsons porn story....
"What's stopping them keeping the shoes and TVs in China, and trading with each other?"
When youre internal market is 15-20% of the world's population, nothing. In fact that's exactly what they claim to be doing, plus a reconstruction drive to rebuild after the recent earthquakes.
People are numb but they still take it, I only turn my head if it grabs my attention and that's what they want to know - does the poster grab people's attention. Other than one particulary large one near me that advertises a brothel, the last time I recall a billboard grabing my attention was when I first saw the mouse with an ear on it's back.
"but it seems to me, the older you get, the less you want, I could be wrong, I am just speaking from personal experience."
OT - Ditto. OTOH we old farts have had time to accumulate our favorite "stuff", replacing the stuff that wears out is not as big a deal, (ie: there is a vast difference between buying your first good car and trading it in later on your second). Also old farts are usually better off financialy (at least until they retire and blow it all on poker machines and a world cruise on the QE11), eg: my "screw this I quit" fund is not enough to retire on but it would keep me afloat for a few years, 20yrs ago it wouldn't have paid the rent. 30yrs ago I figured I could live the rest of my life using the interest on a $100K term deposit as a wage, but that was a couple of years before the breeding instinct took over and forced me to seek out "stuff" to feather the nest - I had no idea how much "stuff" a 2 foot long human "needs".
Now that my youngest is carrying my first grandchild I watch her & hubby collecting all this baby "stuff" with mild amusement, but what I really want is for the kid to be at the toddler stage so that I can feed them chocolate and tell them nice stories about their parents...And maybe a few stories about their gradma who only visits at xmas....[fade to future converstaion]....grandma lives a long way away in a place called "alcohol", you might have overheard someone call her an "alcoholic"....well...that's like how you're an Aussie because you live in Australia....So mum, dad, you and me are all Aussie's but grandma is different. Grandma is an....[pause for response]...excellent....have another chocky...
Slashdot Mirror
That wooshing sound you heard while reading the GP's post - it was a metaphor.
"Admit it, Word can not hold text more than one chapter in one file. MS Word is simply not-good-enough for anything that is longer than 10 pages."
Perhaps if you upgraded from Win3.1 you would have less trouble.
Dude, you have read one too many Michael Chriton books. Politicians and their pet pundits are leading you around by the nose, you rant about a lack of adherence to the scienctific method yet there's not a single scrap of science in your post, just more unsupported conspiracy drivel.
"But maybe that's what you meant about politics and clear thinking?"
No. Never heard of Mullis', [google] hmmm impressive Nobel Prize. He thinks there is nothing linking HIV to AIDS other than a strong correlation ---hang on---- isn't that basically true of any virus and it's symptoms? Reading further he belives this means that AIDS is not transmitted by HIV.....Now I am starting to see why other equally impressive Nobel laureates would chuck him out of a meeting.
Nobody enjoys listening to people state the obvious in support of willfull ignorance, sadly over the hill Nobel laureates do it just as regularly as politically myopic laymen. Science informs politics not the other way around as you seem to believe. If you can't get your head around that then I feel sorry for you sitting inside that political cage of your own making.
Now that I think about it both statements are probably true. IIRC the top 10 years have all been within the last couple of decades.
Ok let's haggle. How much do you want for that spare "example"?
...Al Gore jokes and conspiracy theories.
"Since it's nearly impossible to get funding for any sort of climat change project unless you're narrowly in line with consensus a ton of money has been wasted on basically masturbatory modeling.
Maybe it's not a complete waste after all, it does serve as an anecdote to help your brain shake off that politics thing. Unless of course you can point to an enduring global consensus among the world's scientists that recomends policy makers should look at giant sprinklers?
That's the problem with politics, it's like a brain tumour that sucks away any awareness of the contradictions coming from your own mouth.
"We've yet to see a single climate model successfully predict something unexpected - it's right up there with string theory for usefulness."
Leaving aside the tautology of "predicting something unexpected", you may want to have a look into polar amplification.
Yes, it would be a lot colder without water vapour, but water vapour in the atmosphere has more or less reached it's saturation point and has left huge puddles in the form of oceans. As far Earth's climate is concerened, water is a feedback not a forcing. When something forces the temprature of the atmosphere to change (eg CO2 emmisions) the saturation point will change and water vapour will amplify the change in both directions by increasing/decreasing to the new saturation point.
In other words you need to change either the temprature or pressure of the atmosphere as a whole for it to hold more water vapuor. You can't pump significant amounts into the atmosphere without it falling out as rain/dew elsewhere over the next few days. As for dissipating heat into space, water vapour rarely gets higher than a jet liner since the temp/pressure thing makes it form clouds and it falls down again. Even if the sprinklers blast the vapour directly into space there is that conservation of enery detail to think about.
Although I support pure research I find it sad that someone let this guy have time on a supercomputer to play with his idea.
I think you are mixing up a couple of things, I think the recent clerical error from NSIC on Artic sea ice is what you are reffering to. The error was picked up within a day of the data release.
google is your friend, and if you want to be pedantic it's not over yet.
"You've got two phenomena, oscillating at different frequencies."
No I haven't, and neither have you.
Funny how climate scientists don't dispute that cosmic rays may have SOME affect on clouds.
Funny how the proponents of the so called "Iris theory" fail to answer the obvious question. ie: There is no observable trend in cosmic rays since we started measuring them, so by what mechanisim does a LACK of trend in cosmic rays cause any trend in cloud cover?
Funny how some people ignore the fact that the role of CO2 in warming the Earth has been demonstrated experimentally time and time again for about a century now.
Actually the last two are sad, not funny.
Yes the media have concentrated on sea level rise, it will be a big problem in places like Bangladesh and will cause large migrations. Having said that I agree with you, wet feet is the least of our concerns. The sacry affects can already be seen in Australia's Murry-Darling river basin (our bread-basket), for 8 or 9 of the last 10yrs our harvest has been down by ~50%. Of course the Murry has huge land management problems but the steady northward shift in rainfall patterns is the straw that's breaking it's back.
Rather than demanding simplistic answers that fit their politcs, scientists put error bars on things that are uncertain such as clouds. Clouds are not ignored they are simply not well understood, the affect of cosmic rays on clouds is even LESS well understood and like the Hadley center, I fail to see how a lack of an observable trend in cosmic rays results in an observable trend in clouds. Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.
Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments that have been debunked to death.
BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.
Most of that rise was in the last half of the century and is due to thermal expansion not melting ice. BTW: anthropogenic warming was first proposed about 100yrs ago.
"and this year was the coldest on over a decade, or so i heard."
Yes coldest since 2000. Spinning the data point in the opposite direction - it was the 10th hottest year on record.
Scary yes, scarring no.
I'm not saying the kid won't have nighmares if they come across tubgirl, I'm sure many adults do, but it won't leave a scar any worse than rubbing capsicum juice into their eyes (as one of mine did).
A parent should know their kid well enough to spot an "unhealthy" obsession and show some trust and encouragement for "healty" obsessions. How parents judge what is "healthy" and how much they trust their kids varies widely, the root of many a 'scar' is when that judgement is too far our of whack with reality, society, and in many cases yesterday's judgement of what was/is "healthy".
A scar is something that last a life time, major trauma or extended abuse would do it, but not the temporary shock/neusea the average human feels when confronted with shocking images, the images are shocking to adults because most of us don't like to be reminded we are organic, we have a what seems a reflex response to grimmace and turn away, but it's a largely learned response that's pretty much set in place by about age seven. To a kid (under 7) everything is new and they go through phases of being delighted and scared by new things according to their recent experiences with "new things" and their parents/sibling reaction to them.
I not a doctor but at 50 I have seen my share of daily horror. Smell is what gets more more than any other sense, but for people who find sight is their most sensitive sense of repulsion it takes a strong stomach to watch this documentary on autopsy. Tubgirl and autopy images may burn your retinas but thay are not going to cause a lasting 'sacr' to a kid unless they already have serious problems.
Every parent has their own problems and the vast majority of the (custodial) parents really belive they are bringing their kids up "right", so my question is - who is responsible for breeding the arseholes I keep chasing off my lawn?
"And the world has changed drastically then."
Yes, but people haven't.
"There are things easily found on the internet that can seriously damage the psyche and development of a child."
Outside of a war zone the biggest threat to a child's "phyche and development" is still the parents behviour. The OP's comment is in my mind spot on, my own kid ran a BBS in the late 80's when he was 11-12, perhaps he had some porn on there, craked games, or whatever, I don't know. Whatever it was, it motivated him to learn a hell of a lot about computers and it may have even taught him something about the real world.
BTW: My son is now 28, has two houses and a secure well paid job installing networks.
"The glimer of fur thing must be a reference to the sister.".
NASA confirms it!.
That was supposed to say "still take it in subconsiously", ie: you can go out of your way to ignore them but not to the point where you fool yourself into thinking they don't exist.
"...that's the reason I don't want targeted advertising (yeah, I mean you Google) because ads are a lot easier to completely ignore if they're totally irrelevant."
Exactly, after a decade or so I have trained my brain to ignore all the flashing colours and movement, but when they name my suburb my stupid brain picks it up and points my eyes that way, I keep telling it not to do that but it's a slow learner....(oooh look a woman jogging past the study window....shut-up brain, I'm thinking).
I don't mind huge posters and oversized TV's on buildings but I really hate free standing billboards, especially out in the bush. Fortunately they are less common these days but those that remain are an eyesore, I wouldn't mind one bit if my tax dollars were spent tearing each and every one of them down and installing a couple of trees and a picnic table.
"My money does earn when it's sitting in the bank."
I think you will find that the bank has lent your money to someone else at a better rate than what they are paying you.
"The problem with your line of thought is that its logical conclusion is that money has to keep moving in order to be useful, which is exactly what got us into this whole mess."
No it didn't get us into the mess, what you're describing IS the mess. That's why it's called a credit FREEZE - ie: money stopped going round because banks stopped trusting each other.
Scratching the surface of any political story reveals it's onion like nature and that is a layer I didn't know about.
"I would be very careful in this area; the filter might not be as dead as you think"
I'm not perturbed by being wrong in my pet political theories, I'm just trying to peel back a few layers and think a good theory needs testing. However in this case I really do hope you're wrong, not the least because if I am wrong that means I will feel compelled to get off my arse and make it 7001 protesters.
Personally I think kiddie porn (ie: pre-pubecent children) should come under the relm of evidence of a crime, idealy the privacy of the child demands that they should in some way control with the force of law what happens to any images found after the network is shut down. I have no objection to law enforcement getting a warrant and spying on kiddie porn sites even if it's to enforce a default control for the child. IMHO the pratice of allowing kiddie porn to linger on the net combined with international cooperation (interpol, fbi, etc) to understand the social-networks has done more to bust rock spiders than it has to breed them. I also don't see viewing kidde porn and snuff movies as purely a thought crime, I see it as creating a market for the worst kind of criminals.
A little OT but did you notice the story about the guy who lost his appeal in the simpsons porn case, I read a few articles and they were all the same, where was the rest of the story? - Why was he searched and arrested in the first place? Why no google hits on the original arrest, court case, etc? - A few days later and a major international kiddie porn ring is simultaneously busted here and in a bunch of other countries, my theory is most people will only remeber the simpsons porn story....
"What's stopping them keeping the shoes and TVs in China, and trading with each other?"
When youre internal market is 15-20% of the world's population, nothing. In fact that's exactly what they claim to be doing, plus a reconstruction drive to rebuild after the recent earthquakes.
People are numb but they still take it, I only turn my head if it grabs my attention and that's what they want to know - does the poster grab people's attention. Other than one particulary large one near me that advertises a brothel, the last time I recall a billboard grabing my attention was when I first saw the mouse with an ear on it's back.
"but it seems to me, the older you get, the less you want, I could be wrong, I am just speaking from personal experience."
OT - Ditto. OTOH we old farts have had time to accumulate our favorite "stuff", replacing the stuff that wears out is not as big a deal, (ie: there is a vast difference between buying your first good car and trading it in later on your second). Also old farts are usually better off financialy (at least until they retire and blow it all on poker machines and a world cruise on the QE11), eg: my "screw this I quit" fund is not enough to retire on but it would keep me afloat for a few years, 20yrs ago it wouldn't have paid the rent. 30yrs ago I figured I could live the rest of my life using the interest on a $100K term deposit as a wage, but that was a couple of years before the breeding instinct took over and forced me to seek out "stuff" to feather the nest - I had no idea how much "stuff" a 2 foot long human "needs".
Now that my youngest is carrying my first grandchild I watch her & hubby collecting all this baby "stuff" with mild amusement, but what I really want is for the kid to be at the toddler stage so that I can feed them chocolate and tell them nice stories about their parents...And maybe a few stories about their gradma who only visits at xmas....[fade to future converstaion]....grandma lives a long way away in a place called "alcohol", you might have overheard someone call her an "alcoholic"....well...that's like how you're an Aussie because you live in Australia....So mum, dad, you and me are all Aussie's but grandma is different. Grandma is an....[pause for response]...excellent....have another chocky...