Trump adviser George Papadopoulos lied about Russian links
, the Pope shits in the woods, SpaceX successfully launches another rocket
, and in other news Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016
. Last year's increase was 50% higher than the average of the past 10 years
. Um well Aunty I'm glad you phrased it like that; I like so many other people are thoroughly familiar with what the average rise was over the past 10 years so that immeadiately puts it into context. Or, perhaps more helpfully, 2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from 400ppm in 2015
. Is 3.3 ppmv really so much larger? And then when I go looking for the actual numbers I find Carbon Dioxide Is Rising at Record Rates
from ClimateCentral which tells me the rate in 2016 was 3, just a shade less than 3.03 in 2015. Ah, and the source of the Beeb's article is the WMO
* Donald trump, ha ha ha
>"or he gets impeached. FWIW, I think that’s unlikely."
Comment on that post suggests odds were 1 in 3 at that time.
Now up to about 52.5% of leaving early. Hasn't changed much today or recently really
Just needs a nuclear bomb resting on a piano suspended above it by a fraying rope .....
The Beeb only managed one fib ?
They should take lessons from the masters
Trump tweeted 29th Oct
"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more"
"...are now fighting back like never before. There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO SOMETHING!"
Is that "DO SOMETHING" a rather blatantly overt dog whistle to supporters to create distractions?
Is there any other possible interpretation?
If not, is it getting dangerously close to an admission of guilt?
And then when I go looking for the actual numbers I find Carbon Dioxide Is Rising at Record Rates from ClimateCentral which tells me the rate in 2016 was 3, just a shade less than 3.03 in 2015.
The WMO numbers quoted by the Beeb are from a global average of about 200 sites, rather than the single Mauna Loa record. Also (and much more importantly it seems), the method for finding growth rate by the Mauna Loa peeps is a bit idiosyncratic. Instead of comparing annual averages they look at the increase during the year, from January to December. The WMO use a more standard method and found 2015 growth rate of about 2.3ppm/yr. If you use that standard method on the Mauna Loa data the results are similar - 2015 growth rate of 2.19ppm/yr, 2016 of 3.38ppm/yr.
Rise 3.38 and previous max rise was 1997-8 of 2.97. This is annual mean data from ESRL.
Whereas climate central has used ESRL
to get 3.03 and 2.98 figures you mention. That file says it is Jan 1 to Dec 31. So it depends whether you look at Jan 1 to Dec 31 or average of 2015 to average of 2016. These are different periods so no surprising that the results are different.
Paul beat me to it, sorry hadn't seen that post.
> the Uranium to Russia deal
Trump is definitely flailing, since that's definitely false. But that's hardly a new thing.
CO2: thanks both. I thought it might be something like that but couldn't actually be bothered to find out the exact details.
Has Trump actually achieved anything yet? There is a certain benefit to complete incompetence in politicians (current UK shower excepted).
>"the Uranium to Russia deal : Trump is definitely flailing"
I certainly wouldn't disagree but not very interested in Uranium deal parts.
It is the "DO SOMETHING" part I am more interested in. 'Just more flailing'? Or is it more appropriate to call it blatantly overt dog whistle to supporters to create distractions?
Calling it 'just more flailing' seems to me to be a very generous to Trump interpretation.
As I've said before (though I didn't get much agreement) I think it is a mistake to pay much attention to what Trump says; he has no interest in facts, and I think very little interest in what he said yesterday, or even an hour ago. Much of it is simply smokescreen, or a simple desire to say things that people notice.
Upon clicking your "Donald Trump, ha ha ha" link I am helpfully informed that "I make high quality, bespoke pens to your exact requirements." Has the Bluetooth bizness slowed to the point that you have need for a second source of income?
Sorry about that: raw incompetence by me. It is the "old blog"; I've now fixed that by linking to the new, above. Sb admin offered to redirect from the old blog to the new (for I think one more month) and I gave them the wrong address to redirect to :-(
... couldn't actually be bothered to find out the exact details.
In case you are looking for a new epigraph.
I was going to go for "what does this button do?" or possibly "that crevasse looks well bridged".
BTW the wrong redirect from the old blog is now fixed. It will last for about a month.
'Upon clicking your "Donald Trump, ha ha ha" link I am helpfully informed that "I make high quality, bespoke pens to your exact requirements." '
What could be more lucrative than a White House contract for ten gross of Extra Small Presidential Bill Signing Pens "
Broken windows falicy exposed:
Um, the "broken window" thing is the idea that you should fix small problems. The resilience article (and you know, don't you, that anything about economics in such a forum is going to be wrong; though in this case it isn't so much wrong as unaware of context) is about the idea that disasters are good for GDP, because the cleanup stimulates activity. But this is no new idea; it is a commonplace; e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/26/yes-hurricane-harvey-will-boost-the-texas-economy-no-it-wont-make-us-all-richer
Um, the "broken window" thing is the idea that you should fix small problems.
Really? If you're referring to the broken window fallacy, I thought it was the idea that - ultimately - destruction doesn't benefit the economy (in the sense that if you keep breaking something in order generate business for those who fix the thing you keep breaking, the economy will not actually benefit).
I was thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
But there's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window, which I think is the one you're thinking of. It is, of coruse, valid; but it's hardly new; nor is the idea that GDP isn't what you really want to measure.
Okay, yes, I was thinking of the latter.
Post a Comment