London (change)
Today 22°C / 15°C
Tomorrow 20°C / 13°C

Charlie November


Latest posts by Charlie November

Camera Corner

Posted: 28/06/2015 at 13:57

Hey, Lesley, it may be a weed but that's no reason to completely overlook all those redeeming features. Its flowers are pretty enough for a bridal bouquet, they smell heavenly and it's edible. Compared to knotweed or giant hogweed, the thing's so benign it's almost welcome. You'd never be forgiven for planting it on the allotment, but in an isolated raised bed surrounded by a drive or something like that it's a self-seeding, low-maintenance, edible, hardy perennial flower you could love.

 

I'd try to photograph some more sunsets and sunrises but around here, at this time of year, sunset starts about 23:30 and sunrise finishes about 01:50. Maybe a camera with an auto mode could take a picture every minute from 23:00 to 02:20, facing due north at Brimham Rocks or Tan Hill or something to make a nice animation of it, but I need my sleep.

Oh come on......

Posted: 28/06/2015 at 13:51

Verdun, to be entering a new dinosaur age, we'd have to see some new dinosaurs. I haven't seen the first example of any dinosaur species in or near my garden in MONTHS, I tell you.

 

No, really ...

 

https://xkcd.com/1211/

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/birds_and_dinosaurs.png

 Last "first sighting" for me was a grey heron. Other than that, I've had the same dinosaurs as before: mallard, starling, blackbird, thrush, blue tit, great tit, coal tit, sparrow, dunnock, chaffinch ...

If we're bringing back pre-historic animals, I want opthalmosaurus.

Uh-oh ...

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 19:03

Well ... thank you. That's a huge relief. I was afraid it might be a couple of horsetails that arrived with the new planting there. Now to check out that honeysuckle-looking thing with the pink edges on its leaves ...

monkshood/devils helmet/aconitum

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 14:48

Yeah, knew about oxygen. It's fine below 1.2 atmospheres partial pressure, so you can dive on 20% oxygen (compressed air or helium-oxygen mixes) to about 42 metres in fresh water, 38 in sea water, before it suddenly knocks you out and kills you. Below 30m, it's best to switch to 85-15 HeO or even 90-10 HeO ... which is good down to 70m in sea water but doesn't contain enough oxygen to keep you alive near the surface, so you have to use the 80-20 to get down to 30m then switch to the 90-10 to get down to 70m then switch to 95-5 for the actual recovery of gold and platinum from the wreck at 110m, then switch back at the correct depths on the way up too, and you'd better take some very big tanks down with you because at 110m down you're at 12 atmospheres pressure, so you get through your stored gas at 240 l/min and even a 15l tank at 200 atmospheres will only last you 12.5 minutes.

Yes, platinum bars. Why else would you go that far down?

Nitrogen's toxic too. Nitrogen narcosis, aka rapture of the deep, gets divers a bit "drunk" even at 25m. Then if you stayed down there you've got to make decompression stops on the way back up, too, or you get the bends.

Oh come on......

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 14:25

WillDB, you're with the 10,853 not the 2, then?

Uh-oh ...

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 14:19

What is this thing that has appeared this year?

http://s4.gardenersworld.com/uploads/images/original/83067.jpg?width=360&height=350&mode=max

 

http://s4.gardenersworld.com/uploads/images/original/83068.jpg?width=268&height=350&mode=max

 

http://s4.gardenersworld.com/uploads/images/original/83069.jpg?width=270&height=350&mode=max

 I pulled one out from next to the house, and found another two at next door's entrance, 3m from the house. Tufty-looking things ... kind of like ... the rearmost hairs of a zebra?

Oh come on......

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 13:23

Grrrrr.

So no, we can't say "it's raining now because of cliamte change."

However, "It hasn't started raining on our July 4th parades yet" isn't proof that climate change isn't happening.

By the way, "The Day After Tomorrow" isn't based on science. It's Republican propaganda. Really. In reality, warm surfaces heat the air, it expands and gets less dense, reducing surface air pressure, it's displaced upwards by cooler air flowing in, the Earth's rotation makes the inflows spin and you get a storm system. In the film, "the low pressure is drawing cold air down from the stratosphere." In reality, ice forms on buildings and fences and the like when warmed, moister air hits a colder object, cools and can no longer hold its water. In the film, that super-cold air flowing down from the stratosphere (without any adiabatic heating, somehow) freezes the buildings and puts ice on them. It also manages to flow along a corridor without creating any wind, possibly because it's at such low (stratospheric!) pressure. In reality, seawater has a very high specific heat capacity, and freezing a massive wave of the stuff solid with a cold breeze is just not feasible. In the film, they killed off the British Royal Family, and at the end an American astronaut looks down from the American space station at Europe covered in ice and utterly devoid of life and says to the other American astronaut next to him: "I've never seen it so clean," then the final image is of helicopter flying over New York, pumping out CO2, with the US flag on them. It's a crock of shit, grossly misrepresenting scientific predictions.

Oh come on......

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 13:11

If you put a huge steel bathtub with all sorts of interesting rocks in it as well as a lot of water onto the stove, though, you'll get currents through the rocks and those currents will change with the temperature. The Earth is way more complicated than a bathtub full of rocks and water. We've got reflectivity, clouds, glaciers, deep ocean currents and all that. Different parts can be affected in different ways. If Alaska (which is a very big place) gets 1C warmer and Britain (which is relatively small) gets 4C cooler, that's an increase in the average temperature. It'd be a bugger for both places, with melting permafrost causing problems in Alaska and night frosts through much of the year in Britain, too.

Now lets look at "annual." It's an annual average. We're looking at one temperature for the whole year, not the highest summer temperature, the coldest winter temperature, the temperature at dawn on 21 March or anything specific like that.

If December, January, February and March are 0.1C warmer at night and the rest of the year stays the same, that's an increase in the average, and you'd probably call it pleasant if you noticed. It might result in wasp colonies surviving the winter and growign to insane numbers in some places, or malaria-carrying mosquitoes breeding in new territories or something, but it'd reduce frost deaths in the gardens and cold deaths among the elderly.

If June, July and August are 0.1C warmer during the day, that's an increase and you'd barely notice. Let's call it 1C. Now you're looking at more heat deaths in hot areas and more skin cancer among the fools doing unprotected sunbathing.

If the whole year gets 1C warmer, obviously that's an increase.

If December's 1C colder, January and February are 2C colder, March is 1C colder, May's the same, June's 1C hotter, July's 2C hotter, August's 3C hotter, September's 2C hotter and October and November are the same, that's an increase in the annual average temperature in your location. It comes with all the above problems.

Now combine "global" and "annual" and you get this: if Alaska gets 1C warmer in July, August and September and Britain gets 3C colder in December and March and 5C colder in January and February, that's an increase in the global annual average temperature.

Snow in your garden does not mean there's no global warming.

When it comes to extreme weather, no we can't say "that tornado hit that house because of climate change." No, we can't say "those guys drowned in their attic because of flooding caused by climate change." We don't have another Earth without the climate change. We can't do a comparison. What we can say is that the models all include an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Going back to the bathtub on the stove, the higher you turn the heat the more often a big bubble goes "bloip" somewhere on the surface. If you've got a hand over the surface you can't say "that droplet of boiling water hit my hand because the heat was turned up to 95% instead of 94%" but you can predict that you'll get splashed with more droplets of boiling water because of that increase. We can't predict what time it'll start to rain on the opening day of Wimbledon in 2025. We can, however, map rainfall and detect changes in its location, frequency and intensity. If your reservoirs only hold enough water for 30 days, you're fine with getting 4 days' water every 3 days or 6 days' water every 5 days or 20 days' water every 18 days, but getting 70 days' water in 2 days then nothing for the next 60 days is two very big problems: flood and drought. If all the rain falls downstream of the reservoirs, that's a problem too. It's only really useful if it lands upstream of them. You could build a dam across the Nidd gorge at Knaresborough, flood Patel

Oh come on......

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 13:11

 

So it seems I need to repeat an explanation of something here.

"Global warming" doesn't mean "exactly the same weather every year just 0.05C hotter each year." It doesn't. Really. St George's Day this year is not predicted to be exactly like St George's Day last year but 0.05C warmer and exactly like St George's Day the year before but 0.1C warmer and St George's Day next year is not predicted to be exactly like St George's Day this year but 0.05C warmer.

There are cycles. There are many cycles, with various lengths. Some are "2- to 5- but typically 3-year" cycles, some are "about 7 year" cycles, some are "10- to 11-year" cycles and so on. Back around 1970, a scientist studying these cycles identified many of them and found a rather curious discrepancy: the 1950-1970 trend was pretty much flat, when it should have been downward. Having given the matter some thought, he concluded that the most likely explanation for this was anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere since the industrial revolution having a warming effect. At the end of his research paper (yes, I have read it) he said that we didn't have enough information to know what effect continuing CO2 emmissions would have, that based on the scant info available at the time it could make the world hotter and hotter exponentially or steadily, make the world a bit warmer and then stabilise or even trigger a worse mini-ice-age, and that further study would be required before we could be sure what we were doing to ourselves. Ever since then, people have been saying: "Back in the 1970s scientists thought CO2 would cause another ice age!"

Let's get something cleared up here. The prediction is of an upward trend in global annual average temperatures. See the black line on the graph above? TREND. It's not a year-on-year increase. It's an upward trend. If I posted a graph of the amount of money in my current account, day by day, it wouldn't be a smooth line. It would have big jumps where I get paid and big drops where my credit card bills get paid. If you were to draw lines across the monthly highs or across the monthly lows (how much I actually have available for new plants) or across the monthly averages, you would see the trend. Maybe I buy some new hiking gear or pay for a holiday, and there's a drop, but over 5 years you'd see an upward trend. Taking the point after I'd just been paid the month before I got new hiking boots and broke them in and the point after I'd just paid off the credit card bills that included those boots and that holiday, drawing a line across them and saying there's a downward trend and I'm about to go broke would be bullshit. Going from that low to after the next time I got paid and predicting I'd be a millionaire in 2 years would also be bullshit.

That's "trend."

Now let's look at "global." That's the world, not 22 Acacia Avenue, Strengville, North Carolina. It's the whole world, all of North America, all of South America, all of Central America, all the Caribbean islands, all of Scandinavia and Europe and Africa and the Middle East and the Antipodes and the Orient and Indochina and the Arabian Peninsula and the Caicos and Galapagos and South Sea islands and Antarctica all the water too. It's a very big place. It's also quite a complicated shape. If you put a small saucepan of water on the stove, the temperature in the saucepan goes up or down pretty evenly with the heat under it. If you put a huge steel bathtub with all sorts of interesting rocks in it as well as a lot of water onto the stove, though, you'll get currents through the rocks and those currents will change with the temperature. The Earth is way more complicated than a bathtub full of rocks and water. We've got reflectivity, clouds, glaciers, deep ocean currents and all that. Different parts can be affected in diffe

Oh come on......

Posted: 27/06/2015 at 13:08

http://xkcd.com/1410/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/california.png

 

http://xkcd.com/1379/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/4_5_degrees.png

 http://xkcd.com/1324/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/weather.png

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/slowdown-in-climate-change-never-happened-says-major-review-10298328.html

A major review of global temperatures by a leading US Government agency has failed to find support for the view that global warming has slowed down since 1998, as many climate sceptics have repeatedly claimed over the past two decades.

The prestigious US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has re-evaluated its surface temperature records over land and sea and concluded that the rate of global warming has been just as fast at the start of this century as it was at the end of the last.

NOAA scientists believe that the global warming “hiatus” highlighted in the last report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – and exploited by sceptics to undermine climate change policy – is nothing more than an illusion resulting from artefacts in the data.

There's even a handy graph:

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10298339.ece/alternates/w460/6-Graphic1.jpg

 If you compare 1983 and 1993, and totally ignore all the other years, you can see "a slight decrease," which "sceptics" cited non-stop from 1998 until 2025, saying "There's been no global warming for 10 years." After the way-above-trend spike of 1998, the ventriloquists in the car and fossil fuel industries and Murdoch's empire were rubbing their hands with glee, just waiting for a low. In 2012, they got it, and their puppets started saying there'd been no global warming for 14 years.

You won't see actual scientists comparing 1993 and 1998 and saying there's been a massive acceleration in global warming, because actual scientists just aren't that dishonest, and the sort of person who pays attention to them isn't generally quite that thick.

Compare 1981-83 with 1992-94 or 1997-99 with 2011-2013 and you see an increase. Compare 1978-1982 with 1989-1993 or 1994-1998 with 2009-2013 and you see an increase.

http://xkcd.com/1321/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

 

So it seems I need to repeat an explanation of something here.

"Global warming" doesn't mean "exactly the same weather every year just 0.05C hotter each year." It doesn't. Really. St George's Day this year is not predicted to be exactly like St George's Day last year but 0.05C warmer and exactly like St George's Day the year befo

Discussions started by Charlie November

Uh-oh ...

This one doesn't look good. 
Replies: 9    Views: 385
Last Post: 05/07/2015 at 23:08

3-part hedge

This is what you get for neglecting it for 20 years! 
Replies: 8    Views: 368
Last Post: 04/04/2015 at 22:42

Most embarassing failure of the weekend

Replies: 10    Views: 738
Last Post: 09/04/2015 at 19:59

An octopus's garden in the shade

No octopodes, but lots of shade 
Replies: 8    Views: 584
Last Post: 01/05/2015 at 17:05

Holy glyphosate, Batman! What's that?

Huge thing with tiny white flowers and heart-shaped leaves 
Replies: 16    Views: 773
Last Post: 24/06/2014 at 16:52

Rose cuttings: timing

Replies: 8    Views: 681
Last Post: 22/03/2015 at 14:30

When is honey fungus not honey fungus?

At least I didn't spend anything. 
Replies: 18    Views: 2114
Last Post: 26/10/2013 at 16:46

Apple tree with white leaves

It seems to be healthy enough, if slow-growing 
Replies: 2    Views: 483
Last Post: 10/09/2013 at 18:34

Spurge?

Not a lily. Not an apple tree. 
Replies: 6    Views: 664
Last Post: 10/09/2013 at 22:29

Ooops!

Planning? Measuring? Me? 
Replies: 26    Views: 1601
Last Post: 01/04/2015 at 19:53

Leaving tulips in the ground

Can they be left in if the drainage is good? 
Replies: 14    Views: 3682
Last Post: 13/05/2013 at 08:09
11 threads returned