Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Farmer Green,
Attributed to the IPCC here:
I wish to point out that you are copying and pasting a press release from the GWPF from 2011 which has little bearing on the current article. The bit you left off copying from the end was the quote from their scientific advisor who has since died of old age.
Since it is a press release of a report that came out in 2011, we can look back in time and see that the report concluded that it was quite likely “anthropogenic influences” have caused warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures, and increasing high rainfall events. That things people were doing were causing both increasing warming and increasing instability.
Attributed to the IPCC is not the same as the IPCC said. As I more or less said last time you were posting things like this, you might want to actually check your sources to not appear, at best, to be credulously passing on misinformation other people need to mop up.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Farmer Green,
natural variability is far in excess of any anthropogenic climate signal? That point was made quite clearly.
Eh? If you are talking about the Economist article the Herald hackery was based on, you had better go back and reread it. It cited one paper quoting that
"“the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.” It is possible, therefore, that both the rise in temperatures in the 1990s and the flattening in the 2000s have been caused in part by natural variability."
Now, just to make this reading comprehension quite abundantly clear: If the climate is more varied then temperate will not increase as fast as it was in the 1990s, but will increase faster than it was in the 2000s. As it happens no climate science projects model temperatures increasing as fast as in the 1990s so that is a straw man argument. The current projections are below the slope of the 1990s and above the 2000s.
Now, were you talking about the Economist article, or the less fact based Herald one?
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Russell Brown,
That Economist story is interesting and thorough.
As the accompanying editorial in the Economist put it, having pointed out the low sensitivity levels of increase is still bad, "If the world has a bit more breathing space to deal with global warming, that will be good. But breathing space helps only if you actually do something with it".
-
Anyone want to make a strong opinion on this one (I _think_ it is a young Brown Creeper, Pipipi, but am really not sure)
-
Upper Otago Harbour on a non-foggy day
-
Arthur's Pass road 2006
I'll back up Ben's general math about horizon distance, the formula is
SquareRoot(eye height above water in cm / 6.752) = distance to horizon in km -
I think when the alpine fault lets loose, particularly if it does so in the Northern South Island/ Cook straight region, Dunedin would have stable power fairly quick. Datawise it would be cut off though, with what is going to happen to Wellington (so yes, an independent data link would be welcome).
I am feeling pessimistic this evening, and can't see how this will hurt the government any more than everything else it has done (should hurt is another matter, but then I think they should feel some sense of shame)
-
From today
-
Also Dunedin Botanic Gardens
-
From Dunedin Botanic Gardens
