JohnB

One point that most people haven't considered is that it's very hard to spend that money if you're dead. Any person who demonstrated an actual ability to read minds (for example) would immediately have a large bulls eye painted on them. Spook outfits would want them to spy "for their country", other spooks would want them dead so they can't. Organised crime would want them dead to prevent the police using them. And that doesn't even start to include the scientific outfits that would want them as lab rats for life to discover how it's done. $1 million isn't nearly enough. Anybody with any real ability and a modicum of common sense would stay far away from the Randi challenge.

jryan, I have to side with bascule on this point. The best that can be said for the most recent period is that the temp change is not statistically significant. It's pretty much "blah". Having said that, then the question must be asked "Where is all the extra energy trapped by the increasing CO2 going?" It's not warming the atmosphere, it's not warming the oceans and ACE index is heading for record lows. So, where is it? bascule, I think what jryan is getting at is that for most of the 30 year period, the PDO was in positive phase. This would mean that even without CO2 the temp trend would be positive. In that respect, the period from 1970-2000 could be viewed as "cherry picking". Just as only looking at the 1940-1970 cooling while the PDO was negative could be. The chosen period already had a warming trend from natural causes. Seriously, the warming/cooling/warming trends track rather nicely to a PDO superimposed on an underlying warming trend since the LIA. So three questions; 1. What was the forcing that exited the planet from the LIA? 2. How do you kow it isn't still there? 3. If it isn't still there, is the planet still adjusting to it anyway? (Lag) To explain 3. If the TSI rose by say 2.6 w/m2 in 1870, how long would it take the planet to reach the new equilibrium point? 50 years? 100 years? Any ideas? Note that these aren't "debating questions", they're questions I don't know the answers to. I hope someone else might have some ideas.

Boy are you misinformed. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html I don't see any remote sensing there, do you?

So you don't think that warming 3 degrees in 50 years is a faster rate of warming than .7 degrees in 100 years? How on earth do you do your taxes? wufwugy, if you are not willing to go and read the links, then you won't learn anything. The Younger Dryas did not begin "long before rapid climate change happened", it is defined as a period of rapid climate change. The problem is that you can't define what you mean by "times similar to our current Earth." Is 5,000 years ago too long? We're talking about change during the Holocene, the time since the end of the last Ice Age. Do you mean times when the temps were similar to what they are now? Since the temps have gone up and down, do you want a period when they were about the same as now and going up? Or about the same as now but going down? Then your ideas are wrong. Period. If you aren't willing to read the links and find that out, you will not find the answers to your questions. It really is that simple. Yet when we look at the climate record, "pretty dramatic" describes many of the changes. The current warming is, either by rate of change or amount of change not unusual by any standard. Since rapid change occurs very often in the record, it would be unusual for there not to be a change associated with something mankind does. Correlation does not imply causation. Put it another way. Shortly after the introduction of gunpowder into Europe, the temps dropped the Earth into the Little Ice Age. Would you argue that the increased smoke from gunpowder weapons caused the Little Ice Age? We also know that there was a major shift in around 3,100 BC causing the Saharan oases to dry quickly, leading to those people migrating to the Nile region to become the Pharonic Egyptians. This is less than 200 years after the invention of the wheel. Did the invention of the wheel cause rapid climate change? I guarantee I understand more about the YD period than you do. Analogy my foot. You asked for times when the rate of change was similar to or greater than todays and I gave you one. The entry and exit from the YD were greater in both magnitude and rate than the paltry changes seen today. This is true for all the DO events outlined in the linked to Rahmstorf paper. If you bothered to actually look at the evidence provided you would know that. Do you want facts or cherry pie?

Who do you think NASA GISS get their data from?

Sorry for the delay, but I've been away. I mean internal, rather than external forcings. Volcanic plumes, Solar changes and CO2 from fossil fuels classify as external forcings. Changes (for example) to cloud coverage due to the natural evolution of the planet would classify as internal. As the sea level rose after the last Ice Age, ocean circulation would have changed, thereby changing other factors. This is "internal" forcing. Sorry, but no. I'm aware of and have read papers outlining, 3 different theories for the Younger Dryas period. These all appear to be pretty much mutually exclusive, so the cause is still very much up in the air ATM. The cause(s) of the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming events that occur at 1470 year intervals is (are) also unknown. A rather interesting GRL paper on the topic by Stefan Rahmstorf is here. Nor do we know the cause(s) of the abrupt change circa 8.2 KBP or the cause(s) of the changes circa 5 KBP. Isn't his main "claim to fame" researching why belly button lint is blue? Or is that a different radio presenter? You are aware that sea level rise is not a recent event, aren't you? Sea levels have risen some 150 metres since the end of the last Ice Age. Actually, measuring Holocene sea level rise is another interesting topic. Between the isostatic rebound found near past glacial areas and actually working out the measurements, it's very complex. A fascinating subject. In some areas it goes up and in others it goes down. Morner et al 2004 for example finds a sea level drop in the Maldives of nearly 30cm over the last 30 years or so. To be fair, Church et al 2006 finds no evidence of the drop. They do find though, Like I said, fascinating. Unfortunately for your "smoking gun" idea, the current warming is several magnitudes lower than some previous warmings and coolings. The exit from the Youger Dryas period for example was a temp rise of around 15 degrees over a mere 50 odd years. Now that is from The GISP2 cores in Greenland so we can expect some high latitude amplification. However that would still mean some 3-5 degrees in lower latitudes. Somehow I think that 3-5 degrees over 50-70 years is a bit faster than the current .7 degrees over a century. If you're interested in that period, papers by Dr. Richard B. Alley are a good start. He's involved in the GISP cores and his papers are very readable and clear. (Even to the untrained like me.) wufwugy, part of the disagreement is that to believe that current warming is in some way "unprecedented", you have to deny the existence of of earlier periods of warming and cooling like the Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period. You have to believe that Bristle Cone Pines in California are good and true indicators of the planetary temperature. It's hard to point with alarm at the shrinking Alpine Glaciers if you accept the scientific evidence that they have grown and shrunk something like 5 times in the last 2,000 years. The only way to scare people with horror stories about what will happen in the future if temps rise another degree or so is to ignore the evidence that it was warmer in the historical past than it is now, and the world didn't end. To quote from the abstract of Carlo Giraudis 2005 paper "Middle to Late Holocene glacial variations, periglacial processes and alluvial sedimentation on the higher Apennine massifs (Italy)" (Emphasis mine) You may also like to read Mayewski et al 2004. Climate changes, always has and always will. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, this interglacial is unusual, in that rather than peaking and dropping, the temps have bounced up and down by around 4 degrees for the last 10,000 years. As to why the Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern, I think iNow has probably got it with his questions. Cheers.

I thought it was the spanish barber who shaved every man in town who didn't shave himself.

He's talking about 50 million years ago, which as I showed must have had vastly different circulation patterns and forcings compared to today. The thrust of his comment was to imply that natural climate changes only occur slowly over long time periods. This is false. Climate can change very rapidly over short time spans from purely natural forcings. "I don't know whether to attribute this to incompetence or a malicious intent to deceive." Okay, I'll give you that. I think that the graph is script generated from the MSU data, that's why I have to link to the page rather than the graph itself. Frankly, (not knowing scripts) I don't know if a 5 year smoothing and trend line can be added, but I would have thought that it could be done. What did you think of my comments re internal forcings causing large scale changes? It's something I've been pondering on and would like your opinion. Take your time. I'll be out of town for the next few days and not able to log on until about Friday, so there's no rush. PS. I'd also like your thoughts on the UHI thread. Cheers.

A few points. SH3RLOCK. One should always be careful when using graphs. The one I posted showing CO2/ Temps over millions of years was for 2 reasons. 1. It illustrates that an increase in CO2 even to very high concentrations would not appear to result in Earth becoming like Venus. Hence a terminal runaway greenhouse effect is not on the cards. 2. To illustrate the apparent "limit" of temp rise. Because of the long timeframe, it would appear that the limit is independent of CO2, continental drift or other variables. However there are caveats to this. Firstly due to the long timeline, resolution is lost so comparison to modern records except in general, would perhaps not be a good idea. Secondly, the "limit" may be an artifact and not a true reflection of the temps way back then. I"m not fully conversant with the techniques used, but it is at least possible that the techniques simply do not recognise temps above 23 odd degrees over the timeperiod. My observation of the apparent "limit" is nothing more than that, an observation that I find interesting. For the above reasons and as demonstrated in post #63 forcings in the far distant past were so different from modern times that (again except in wide generalities) meaningful comparisons could probably not be inferred. Peak Oil Man, The way I read the graph in #43 is that the temp peak (blue line) has been very short (and some degrees above current temps) lasting for only 1,000 years or so followed by a drop to a 100,000 year glacial period. (give or take) The current cycle is different though. Firstly the glacial was longer than usual by 10-15,000 years. Secondly the temps stopped rising some 12,000 years ago and have stayed remarkably level, moving up and down over about a 40C range. Tim Flannery loses me when he speaks of "balance". The Earths climate and ecosystems never have been, are not now and never will be in "balance". His basic assumption is incorrect. Reaper, I see where you're coming from and would be inclined to agree except for the fact that this cycle is different from the others and I've yet to see a good explanation why. On the basis of previous cycles it should be cooling now, yes. But also on the basis of previous cycles, it should not have stopped warming some 12,000 years ago. There is an argument going around that human agriculture over the last 10,000 years or so has effected climate to prevent the cooling. I would call this wishful thinking at best. When we look at a population graph It strikes me that for the idea to have credence, then the effect of some 30-50 million subsistence farmers in 10,000 BC would have to be roughly the same as 200-300 million people in 1,000 AD. I think we can call this "unlikely". For those subsistence farmers to have such a great effect (stopping the cooling cycle) then the climate would have to be extremely sensitive to such things. If this were the case, then we would have seen far greater impacts in the past 4-5,000 years. We do not, therefore the climate is not extremely sensitive and therefore the change to farming did not prevent the start of the cooling cycle. I would add that the hypothesis that early agriculture prevented the cooling does not address in any way the fact that warming stopped at around the same time. How would subsistence agriculture act to stop both a warming and cooling cycle? But then is not now, is it? The debates in these pages are not about whether CO2 can cause warming, because of course it can. The question is better phrased as "How much of the current warming is attributable to CO2?" A totally different question. When we model or project the future we make certain assumptions. Specifically the IPCC and (AFAIK) modellers make a basic assumption that climate will not change appreciably except as a result of exernal forcings. We test models in this fashion, if we don't vary the external forcings and the model runs stay roughly level (trendless) then we view the model as reasonable. I believe, but cannot prove (except logically) that this assumption is false. The climate can change by only internal forcings and it can do so on a short time scale. It's easy to demonstrate on a long time scale. Referring back to this graphic; We can see that the Americas have yet to join. What many people don't realise is that now, the sea level on the US East coast is substantially higher than that on the west coast. The reason is that the world turns and the water bulges up on the east coast. As we can see from the illustration, with the Americas separate, the water can flow through the gap. Once they join however, the Pacific and Atlantic become separate oceans with an obvious vast change in circulation patterns. This of course happens on geological timescales and the effect is over millions of years. The point is though, that even if every external forcing remained exactly the same, there would be a major shift in ocean currents and a resulting major shift in the Earths climate. Could this happen quickly? Easily. A volcanic island can be born in a matter of days. To think that this doesn't disrupt the currents is fanciful. In turn this might effect cloud formations and lead us to cross one of James Hansens "tipping points" leading us to abrupt climate change. Again all through internal forcings only. bascule, All respect to Dr. Mitchell K. Hobish, but I think he is being misleading at best. This translates to me as "My proof relies on something you can't see because the graph is "too coarse"." I don't see that as much of an argument. Would any scientist accept the argument "The proof is there, but the graph just doesn't show it"? There are a couple of problems with this comment. Firstly it gives the impression that previous climate changes were slow and spread over thousands of years. This is totally false and frankly he should know that. The changes connected to the YD period were faster and greater than the changes in the last century. (Some 30C over 40 odd years IIRC.) Anybody who has looked at temps over the Holocene knows this, it's basic. So why is it misrepresented? Secondly, note the mix. He compares known temp changes in the past with theoretical predictions in the future. This is knowingly comparing apples and oranges to give a misleading result. I note in passing that he also seems quite reliant on broken hockey sticks. Also since we now have a 30 year record from the satellites, it might be worth seeing what they say. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html Would you say that the UAH MSU is showing "unprecedented" warming over the last 30 years? For that matter, would you say that they show even "unusual" warming?

Just like the other thread. Spammer.

iNow, thanks for that. Phi, he knows it's a joke. He does a different one each week. John Deere Tractors <object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoLjtmvlT6s&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoLjtmvlT6s&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object> Maitre D Commercial Kitchen Equipment <object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB0q3pWVHfw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB0q3pWVHfw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object> Tertiary Effluent Treatment Facilities <object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXT1O9YxhVo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXT1O9YxhVo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object> From looking at youtube, the show has spread to both the US and the UK, I guess they just haven't put this part in yet.

I'm sure it's not just an Aussie thing, having retired sportsmen and women advertise everything from holiday destinations to cars. The Aussie comedy program "Thank God You're Here" decided to try something a little different. What happens when a medium pace bowler talks about a synchrotron? PS. How do you get the embedding thingy to work?

POL, I haven't looked into that much and like you I keep hearing it's a long way off. But, if we look at the record, (post #43) temps spiked sharply and then dropped. (The previous peaks appear to have lasted less than 1,000 years) On that basis, if anything I would have thought we were well overdue for cooling.

Just out of curiousity, would it still be "just a distraction" if it was a Republican ex VP that stood to make millions?

There is your answer. PETA is neither intelligent nor rational. For a Bhuddist, non violence is a way of life, it's just how they are. For people like PETA, "non violence" is a religion, one they wish to spread by any means possible. A religious extremist, by definition is not rational.

"chocolate-relativistic mass"?? The faster I go, the more chocolate I have? I like physics!

I have the feeling that a search for a particular topic gets done and the resurrector posts without looking at the date.

I believe it to be visible light. The brighter the light at night, the more civilisation is nearby. I haven't been able to confirm this as surface temps are a large field and I"m just an amateur reading sh*tloads and trying to understand. It's an area I haven't got to yet in detail. Firstly, so there are no misunderstandings. I don't approach this from the POV that the records are "wrong" and I'm not out to prove that in any way. I'm asking the question "Are they right?" Accurate records are vital to the understanding of climate and to the attribution of climate change. bascule has done some work with models and iNow supports the idea of models, and frankly, so do I. However, a model has to be tested against something, that something usually being the temp record. If the record is "out", then the model will be validated against the "wrong" figures and it's projections will be compromised. To me, this would be "ungood". The temp record is also important for the purposes of attribution. Taking the temp rise over a period we attribute certain percentages of that rise to different forcings and feedbacks. (UHI, land use, CO2, etc) Some of these attributions are mathematical (the direct forcing of a CO2 increase) and some are estimated (water vapour amplification). The record becomes important here because small differences in temp become large differences in attribution. For example, if the record shows a rise of .50, we work out the attributions based on this figure. However if the rise was in fact only .40, (a measly .1 degree difference) the effect would be that our attributions are in reality 20% too high. The main reason IMO for concentrating on the US data and data collections is that you lot have the best measuring system in the world, so if you've stuffed up the rest of us are probably in deep doo doo as well. I'm not saying that this has happened, just highlighting the small factors being worked with and the resulting need for accuracy. To the records. (And talking about NOAA specifically) There are two misconceptions; 1. NOAA do not use the satellite data in the preparation of their datasets. Where they get their data for the GHCN dataset is found in the table http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/source-table1.html 2. NOAA do not adjust only the uncertaincies, but also adjust the station metadata. NOAA, as bascule quoted use the uncertainties in Folland et al 2001, a paper that I can't find except behind a paywall. Why they don't use the more recent Smith et al 2005 ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-comparison.pdf ) I don't know. Smith finds that his comparison means that; Note that all this means is that the uncertainty is greater as we go into the past due to poorer equipment and sampling methods. (No sh*t Sherlock. But it's nice to have then quantified.) I have no quibble ATM with the uncertainties, from what I have seen they seem quite reasonable. It's low uncertainties that bother me. Adjustments to the data. This page http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html lists the adjustments made to the data in a 6 step process. Each step is an individual process and the effect is cumulative. Individual adjustments are shown by this graph from NOAA. This shows the adjustments to data as individual steps, however the combined graph shows the final result. So what does the above mean? Blunty, if a temp sensor recorded the same temperature each year (no change at all) then the output dataset would show a .50 F rise in temp from circa 1950 to 2000. Roughly .10 F warming trend per decade, which is around 1/3 of the total warming for the second half of the 20th C. To say the least it seems very odd that the more recent the readings, the more they are adjusted. So that's what happens to the raw data, but are there problems with the raw data? sufacestations.org have been auditing the USHCN for a couple of years now and have found a number of problems. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf This is the most recent report highlighting the problems. (Including one that I've never seen mentioned before.) The original boxes or Stevenson Screens have in the past been coated with whitewash. That was the standard coating for these items. In 1979, the standard was changed to a semi-gloss latex paint. One could reasonably ask if this effects the readings inside the box. As described in the pdf he used three Stevenson Screens with matched, calibrated thermistors. The results were that the Latex painted screens read generally higher than the whitewash ones. Remember that these differences are against a background of only a 1.20 F temp change over the last century. However, a point that Watts doesn't make but I will. The change of paint at any given station should therefore result in a step change in the record and should be able to be adjusted for. While the change in the aggregate average would be unnoticable and be interpreted as an increase in the warming trend, it should be visible in individual stations. (Must look into this more.) An argument commonly used against surfacestations is that as "amateurs" they are not qualified to assess the various stations. On this I'll happily call BS. Direct from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/site_info/CRNFY02SiteSelectionTask.pdf we have the siting classifications as used by NOAA, which are used by surfacestations. It should be noted that the only "qualifications" that would be required to check classifications are a tape measure and eyes that work. This is not rocket science. The results aren't good. Out of 1,221 staions in the US, 865 (or 70%) have now been surveyed with the following results; Class 1: 3% Class 2: 8% Class 3: 20% Class 4: 58% Class 5: 11% Which means that by NOAAs own guidelines, 20% of stations are expected to read >10C high, 58% are expected to read >20C high and 11% are expected to read >50C high. So on an impartial basis, 89% of the US stations are reading too high, this doesn't give high confidence for the ROW, does it? To be fair, NOAA has published an answer to the Watts report: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf I only came across these two reports yesterday so I haven't digested them yet. I do find the NOAA graph comparing 70 Class 1 stations with the entire network very interesting as it shows bugger all difference. So in that respect I'm not sure what to think. As to UHI adjustments for NOAA. NOAA use the adjustments as put forward in Karl et al 1998 http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/1/11/pdf/i1520-0442-1-11-1099.pdf What I really don't understand in Karl et al is Table 7. I can see how UHI would increase the minimum temp at night, but I can't see how it would decrease the maximum temp.??? Yet the methodology of pairing rural with nearby urban sites seems sound. There are a few other points and papers concerning the temp records, but this post is long enough as is I think. The above should be enough for discussion and insight. I'm preparing information on the differences between the various datasets that might be illuminating.

Oddly enough that is heard very rarely. (I've never heard it) I think that if anything people are more likely to vote against the guy who is ahead. They look and think "Nope, I don't really want him to win" and so vote the other way. This of course leads to both sides trying to claim "underdog" status. "We're the underdog because we're in opposition and people haven't voted us in in years!" "No, we're the underdog because we've been in government for years and people traditionally vote against the government!" I don't really think so. If someone wants to not vote, the $20 fine is not excessive and it's only once every three years or so. The thing is that people who don't vote and tell people about it are generally told to bugger off during political discussions. The reasoning is that they had their chance to voice their opinion and didn't, so they now have no right to bitch about which way the election went. Besides, if they are so strongly against the current parties and the system they should put their money where their mouth is and stand as a candidate. They may stand as an independent in their electorate for a $500 deposit. (Which is refunded if they get more than 4% of the primary vote.) So if they won't vote to change things, or won't join a party to change things, or won't get off their arse and stand to change things, then they are just a "Whinging Bastard" and not worth listening to. Simple really.

I think so. The idea being that since you have to vote, you are more likely to look at the policies and issues. This is possibly true as most people do have conversations about policies. The voting populace is certainly better informed since we left the "My side right, your side wrong" mentality behind. Only the diehards still have this attitude. There is evidence for the opposite though. We have a thing called the "Donkey Vote". This is where the voter simply starts at the top and numbers the boxes 1, 2, 3, etc straight down the page. Not the greatest pic, but you should get the idea. I have scrutineered at elections and can honestly say that in my experience, the Donkey Vote is quite rare. However, in the past it's existence has caused concern due to the possible importance of being the first name on the ballot paper. Candidates with the name "Aaron Aaardvark" would be well placed. The system used is a double random draw. From the AEC. We also get a number of "spoiled" votes, people voting for Mickey Mouse, that sort of thing but again the numbers are low. "Informal" votes are a bigger problem. An informal vote occurs when the voter makes a mistake without realising it, perhaps putting by two people at number 8. It mainly occurs when there are a large number of candidates. In the 2003 election for the New South Wales Upper House there were 284 candidates, leading to a record informal vote. Sh*t happens. No system is perfect. It's taken a fair bit of looking but I can answer the question. Firstly for Federal Elections; I wonder what happened to (b)? Anyway a person of "unsound" mind is not entitled to vote. So that covers those who were of unsound mind before their 18th birthday. (The age we have to enrol to vote.) The Electoral Act also provides that a person with "valid and sufficient reason" is not required to vote. One such reason is mental impairment. Should a person become mentally impaired to such an extent that they no longer understand their "duty" (and a Doctors Certificate is supplied) that person is no longer required to vote. People have tried a number of "valid and sufficient reasons" over the years but I like this one; He was still fined $20, but a good effort all the same. In the case of physical impairment, the elector is entitled to a postal vote or a visit by an AEC official. In the case of an "Aged Care" facility, an electoral officer will go to that place with ballot papers, etc and take the votes. This means that; And all voting laws and penalties for attempting to subvert the system apply. This is to prevent political parties going to nursing homes to "help" people fill out their ballot papers. A side note, proxy votes are not allowed under any circumstances in an Australian election. In the case of impairment, but still able to turn up at the Polling Station; So it is compulsory, but we go to great lengths to make sure that people are able to vote. There is even a section of the Act that covers voting by persons in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Maybe. The biggest obstacle to an informed populace is partisanship, IMO. I can't speak for other nations, but the irrational hatred shown during the Bush years is astounding to most Aussies I know. The whole concept of "My side is always right" is bogus. The fact is that no matter what Bush said or did, there was a large part of the US public who would automatically think it was wrong. (And another part that automatically thought it was right too;)) This black/white view does not allow problems to be looked at objectively, because point scoring becomes more important. Our two systems depart in a major way WRT voter registration. I realise that being a "Registered (insert party here) Voter" is integral to your system as it (I think) sorts out the voters for Presidential candidacies, but the whole concept of having to tell someone what party I vote for is strange to me. Who I vote for is my business and nobody can demand that information from me. I can join a political party if I wish to and I am not required (and cannot be required) to tell anyone about it. A major improvement over the last few decades has been the increase in the number of "swinging voters". These people (I'm one of them) will change their vote depending on the performance of the government and the issues. This means that a seat is more likely to change hands if the gov stuffs up. It also means that the same electorate may vote differently depending on whether it is a Local, State or Federal election. My own went right at the local and federal level and left at the state level. (Big mistake, the State gov couldn't run a cake stall at a School fete. Mind you, Kevin is no great shakes as a PM either.) Sometimes it takes both sides having a go to make a system work. When we first got our Universal Healthcare system it was brought in by the left. It was a great idea but the execution was abyssmal. The thing was a gigantic black hole sucking in vast amounts of money and not delivering the goods. The left in Australia is generally long on Ideology but very short on business acumen. After the gov changed, the right (not as strong on ideology but far better business managers) reworked the system so it was no longer a black hole and turned it into something that works. So if it had been exclusively the right, we probably wouldn't have a UHC at all, but if only the left had had a hand in it, we would probably have gone broke by now. I've left out the names of our parties simply because for us a "Liberal" is from the right but a "liberal" is from the left. Ain't politics fun? I hope I've answered your questions completely enough for you to get an idea of how we work our compulsory system.

Everybody knows there are only 11 sacred planets.

I know I must come across as a "denier" at times, but it's simpler than that. If I'm told "If we cross 450 ppmv then... yada, yada, yada", the first thing I do is have a look at when similar situations occurred in the past. To me, any theory that predicts disaster when a certain threshold is crossed must also explain why it didn't happen last time the threshold was crossed. The further back we go, then the more likely that very different forcings come into play. I ask questions, I read, I learn. So far I'm unconvinced. That's all. I'm not saying the pro side are wrong, simply that I'm unconvinced. I honestly don't understand why the act of questioning seems to be a crime sometimes.

bombus, there is no need for a subduction zone to be associated with the Antarctic Plate. Think of it this way. If Antarctica stays where it is and the other plates are moving North away from it, then the subduction zones could be at the other side of the second plate. (Or you could get mountain building.) For example, as the African Plate moves North, the subduction zone would be to the North of the African Plate. Strangely enough, that's exactly where it is, in the Med. As the Australian Plate moves North East away from the Antarctic Plate, there is a subduction zone in the Pacific. There is no need for a subduction zone to be associated with the Antarctic Plate if all the other plates are moving away from it. They subduct under each other, not Antarctica. There is no requirement for every plate to have both a subduction zone and an expansion rift. It would appear that your assumption that all plates should have both is the centre of your misconception. If you remove the false assumption, your argument collapses. @ iNow. Nice find on the map.

Sorry Bear's Key, I didn't see the thread. Australia doesn't use voting machines in any way, shape or form. After an election is called, The Australian Electoral Commission looks after things. They take applications for candidacy and finalise and print the ballot papers. They also organise the venue for the "Tally Room". On election day AEC officials (many only do elections) check each voters name against the Electoral Roll. The voters name is crossed off the list and they are handed their ballot paper. Each ballot is initialed by the AEC official in the voters presence. We take the paper to the stall and number the candidates in order of preference. We use the "Preferential" or "Run off" system. After numbering the ballot paper we place it in the ballot box on the way out. If there are multiple elections on the same day, the ballots are differently coloured and there are the requisite number of ballot boxes to drop them into. Voting places are normally schools or community halls. (Which also allows the Scouts, Girl Guides and School Organisations to sell cakes, biscuits and the like as a fund raiser.) After close of voting each ballot box is emptied onto a table and the "Primary" votes are counted. Primary in this case simply means who got number "1" beside their name. Ballot papers are literally sorted into piles on the table and counted. "Scrutineers" appointed by their respective political parties watch the count to ensure honesty. It is illegal for a scrutineer to touch any ballot paper for any reason. Their hand must never pass above the tabletop, this prevents someone dumping some extra votes in. Once the primary votes are tallied at that polling station the AEC "Returning Officer" phones the Tally Room with the results. While there a number of phone lines into the Tally Room, each Electoral Officer has only one number he is allowed to call. The Tally Room officers have a list of phone numbers that results are allowed to be called in from. Quite often it is obvious who hasn't got a hope in hell of getting in and so their votes are distributed to their second preference at the Polling Station. All votes are kept under tight security until final votes are counted (in case there is a recount needed) and they are then destroyed. Ballot papers are printed, kept and destroyed under the same sort of security used for currency. Colours and patterns change every election. Because there is a constant paper trail and each political party scrutineers, the system is open and honest at all times. Doing the whole thing manually might seem to take a lot of time. However polls close at 6 PM local time, and a result is usually known by 10PM. We have "Absentee" and "Postal" votes for those not in their normal electorate on election day. (Just because we're going to choose the government of the nation is no reason to upset your holiday.) These vote are recorded and kept but the percentage is usually so low as to make no difference to the outcome. We do have compulsory voting and there are fines for not voting. Although the fine is small (about $25 IIRC) and is more intended as a slap on the wrist more than anything else. I must admit, I grew up under compulsory voting and don't see anything strange about it. Checking the Electoral Rolls is something the AEC does constantly. For example they will do mail outs to all voters with a small card to take with you when you vote. Any of these letters that are returned to the AEC might indicate a "phantom" voter and give them a name to watch for. There are apparently other safeguards, but they don't get talked about much. I totally agree and believe our paper trail system is extremely hard to mess with because it's a physical thing. I suppose, theoretically, it would be possible to stuff a ballot box, but I'm buggered if I can see how. Each polling station knows exactly how many ballots they hand out and the number counted at the end of voting must match. Note that this means that investigations would start at the Polling Station where the irregularity was noticed, and immediately, rather than trying to piece things together later. The scrutineers are told how many votes were issued as well, so they can cry foul instantly if there is a problem. I kind of like making the political parties provide volunteers to watch each other. Why should the electorate pay? If the US decided to abandon the machines, I don't think it would be that hard. As the voting is organised on a local level, each Polling Station only handles about 3,000 people, so local results start coming in rather quickly. After that it's just a matter of adding up the totals. If you keep first past the post, there isn't the need to distribute preferences so the answer again comes quickly. Frankly though. For all the money you spend on them, I just don't see that the machines are giving good value. "Hanging chads" and the invisibility of the system make it ripe for abuse or problems.

"Punning 101" Check your spelling. Sorry SH3RLOCK. Thanks iNow.