Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sossij

  • Rank
  1. Thanks 98% Chimp. That would be galactically depressing
  2. Article does mention drop in sales from forecourts. Maybe there's been a drop in the number of forecourts
  3. Excellent - someone for The Count to vote for at last.
  4. It's also hiding in the ground in the form of hydrocarbon reserves that we can't afford to burn.
  5. Easy, it's hiding in the future. It hasn't been created yet. Trouble is we've already spent it.
  6. There we can agree A good piece on him here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/23/sal-khan-academy-tutored-educational-website ... sorry it's from the Guardian
  7. Ok.... fair enough, your pov. By the way... I took your advice and followed the link in your sig: I see there's some rather interesting courses... Course # Course Title Level 12.003 Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics Undergraduate 12.009 Theoretical Environmental Analysis Undergraduate 12.085 Seminar in Environmental Science Undergraduate 12.307 Weather and Climate Laboratory Undergraduate 12.333 Atmospheric and Ocean Circulations Undergraduate 12.842 Climate Physics and Chemistry Undergraduate 17.441 International Politics and Climate Change Undergraduate 21H.421 Introduction to Environmental History Undergraduate 11.941 Urban Climate Adaptation Graduate 11.942 Regional Energy-Environmental Economic Modeling Graduate 12.740 Paleoceanography Graduate 12.811 Tropical Meteorology Graduate 15.023J Global Climate Change: Economics, Science, and Policy Graduate Are they 'pish' too?
  8. Three Numbers: The First Number: 2° Celsius The Second Number: 565 Gigatons The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
  9. Yes, I agree that within limits, life tends to regulate the biosphere. It's a good job that, in addition to pumping unprecedented levels of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, we're not also embarking on a planet-wide program of deforestation, soil erosion, species loss, desertification and ocean acidification too... oh wait. We are.
  10. Heh, not quite the 'best thing' I'd have hoped for. I have a slim hope - a transition of our economy to nukes, solar and wind on a WW2 level may solve the problem of global depression and slow climate change. But as the LSE report quoted in the OP suggests if we burn the reserves we tank the planet, leave them in the ground we tank our (current) economy. Unfortunately sentiments in the OP at worst advocate doing nothing, at best peddle continued disinformation that climate science is immature, unproven etc. For example, this is classic disinformation: "Yet the science itself is not settled; there is no sure way of telling whether man-made carbon is heating up the environment, nor whether the environment itself is getting hotter." Same 'arguments' used by the tobacco industry wrt lung cancer.
  11. Yes, and similar recent articles. If you apply basic physics to our understanding of the atmosphere you pretty soon realise the requirement for a greenhouse effect. Further experiment indicates that infra red radiation trapped by greenhouse gases are the reason why the mean global temperature of the Earth's surface is closer to 288K (measured) and not 255K (as expected by a b-b calculation). Just physics, nothing else. Now what do you think will happen if more greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate? The global mean surface temperature will... 1) go down? 2) go up?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.