Who says GW is bad? Climate change stops fighting between India and Bangladesh says Nurture. [Err, see comments. And also, JA nailed this -W]
David Appell wonders about "Livestock's Long Shadow" - the odd thing is that I swear I've done this one before, and *I* didn't really believe their numbers either. But it might have been on wikipedia... can anyone help me out?
And, briefly, some science: Unmanned planes take wing for science. Bit of a dobber-substitute, no? There is a downside: Flying instruments on the Global Hawk isn't cheap or easy. NASA charges the same price -- US$3,500 per hour -- to use the Global Hawk as for various manned aircraft so maybe this is just PR by the gents with guns. [ps: BAS did some stuff too but on a much smaller scale.]
Om NOM NOM! Doughnuts: a guide for the perplexed: Tesco: astonishingly cheap and fairly cheerful. Sainsburys: a bit sugary-er, perhaps too "fat". Waitrose: too far away. Co-op: OK but not memorable.
"p4 resolved" - isn't that useful. I never knew that. No more lost files. I must read the rest of the manual some time.
The expensive drones go higher than even the ER-2 (aka U-2) and can stay in the stratosphere longer. There are a whole bunch of less expensive ones including some built by students. You might have been interested in the one described at the link.
What about p4 resolved?
[Just http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.073/manuals/cmdref/resolved.html#1… It helped me find some lost files -W]
If you don't want to go so high, its far less expensive to use the aerosonde. I doubt that they would agree with the assertion in the Nature article that "drones never caught on as serious research tools." I know they've repeatedly flown into hurricanes/cyclones for research.
Disclosure: I have a friend who is an electronics designer for aerosonde.
Anyone else feeling uncomfortable with the 'Global warming claims New Moore Island' mini-meme? The damn place only popped up after a storm 30-odd years ago, didn't it? It feels a bit tenuous to be attributing its disappearance to SLR - and this attribution is already being gleefully cited all over the septicosphere as evidence of 'warmista' disingenuousness.
[Oops sorry. You weren't supposed to believe that. I recall reading a blog post doing the obvious demolition of this: the mudbank arose in the ?1970?s and has gone again; yes it has (almost) nothing to do with GW. I've updated the post a little -W]
P4 manual? I read this (and the help output) instead:
If you have Safari membership, it's also on there.
[Hmm, I found that book not-very-helpful: it just didn't cover what I want to type day-to-day. I does briefly mention "resolved" but doesn't really tell you what you would use it for, so had I read that bit it would not have stuck in my mind -W]
That would have been my blog post about the bogus sea level rise thing. TIA for the link :-)
I see Nature has not seen fit to approve the comment I left on their post.
[Aha, twas you. I *did* search but somehow had managed to forget - buried under the flowers no doubt. Link added, thanks -W]
Where's the Popper from? I also remember him saying something to the effect that "words mean what I say they mean", to contrast himself with LW and the positivists.
[TOSaiE, vol II, near the end. I'll probably get round to blogging it, it is excellent. Mind you, so is all the rest -W]
"I does briefly mention "resolved" but doesn't really tell you what you would use it for, so had I read that bit it would not have stuck in my mind"
Fair enough. :) Though TBH I couldn't work out what you were saying about it and lost files anyway (never had any myself, yet) - your link didn't even refer to it.
[Ah no, that link was just to the P4 blog. The problem I was having, when working over several bugs and branches, was in sometimes ending up with resolved changes that I'd forgotten to actualy submit, thereby leading to mysteriously missing files in integrates elsewhere -W]
A yes, "The Open Society By One Of Its Enemies", authored by a dude who argued that we must make an attempt to falsify our most closely held theories, but never admitted he was wrong.
[Err not sure what your problem with is with Popper. You could blog it :-). I don't see any immeadiate problem with "(a) must make an attempt to falsify our most closely held theories, but never admitted (b) he was wrong" - you appear to be suggesting that (a) implies (b), or that (b) is somehow obvious, but without providing any justification -W]
"The problem I was having, when working over several bugs and branches, was in sometimes ending up with resolved changes that I'd forgotten to actualy submit, thereby leading to mysteriously missing files in integrates elsewhere -W"
Makes sense. I tend to use the UI as well as the Cl as my P4 work is all on Windows so may miss that sort of drop-off because of that. However, I do sometimes script P4 and have in the past created text file lists of processed files for future reference (and input to other scripts). You could redirect resolved file lists into a "to be submitted" file. Displaying that file on the desktop through ("serious samurize", rainlendar in Windows - conky, etc. in Linux, etc.).
I found samurize(pre-rainlendar days) + p4 scripts a great way to keep up with one larger project.
[But this isn't new, that is ref'ing stuff from 2008 -W]
Yes, p4 resolved can be very useful. I thought you were pointing out a particular feature of it. Don't forget p4 resolve -n.
Your html is broked.
[Some persons is never happy -W]
but thanks all the same!
[I've patched it up now. All this niceness - I'm guessing this must be Jules -W]
Purveyors of miscellany Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger have an essay in a Yale mag that I've just started to read.
So far, I object to the use of "environmentalists" when the correct term is AGWer or the neutral climate concerned. Many environmentalists, especially those old enough to have sought an energy transformation since before climate became an issue, hold contrary views on climate or consider climate less compelling than other effects of carbon based energy. Many of us believe the focus on CO2 is actually hindering that transformation.
[Ah, labels, always a problem. What of "skeptic", for example? A terrible label -W]
Gaia, or Medea?
If only all labels were like those on soup cans; 3 grams of actual knowledge, 5 grams of unfounded opinion, 2 grams of parental baggage and 100% of the minimum daily requirement of self satisfaction.
While I agree that the "Livestock's Long Shadow" numbers were clearly wrong (eg, livestock is not a greater source of emissions than transport), I think that Mitloehner may be over-downplaying the contribution of said emissions (for example, he compares US transport to US pig + cattle emissions (26 to 3), but I believe that a proper accounting would have to take into account the ever-pesky indirect land use change emissions from other regions) and therefore undervaluing reductions of meat consumption (especially in the world where you aren't going to get an efficiency solution that will knock off 10% at a go, dismissing solutions just because they won't give more than a percent or so is not smart in my opinion) (though I haven't worked through the full numbers myself)
Oh dear, Wikipedia again:
"Read Wikipedia on Little Ice Age (You can edit it if you think it wrong)
I believe it occurred, the description seems pretty complete and the beginning and end confused. It was 1C colder which is what SA charts with his fit....
You tell me what forced LIA to stop and why you believe weâre not recovering still."
I'll make the popcorn.
for the collection, if you're still collecting these
[Only the science, not the blogs: this is just another of the tedious rehashes. Anyone writing this now without citing our paper is fooling themselves -W]