Climategate 2.0

[Ninjahedge]

Mono, please pull out an analysis of the dam using modern code and methods to show us what it could withstand?

The shaking is not what would kill it. A differential response or deflection in the support strata would.

 

[cybrsage]

I have no idea if a 9.x is possible from the fault, but geologists now know that 7.0 is too low of an estimate:

POSTED 5:43 pm MDT August 18, 2009
UPDATED 7:01 pm MDT August 18, 2009

On Sunday night, a 3.9 magnitude earthquake hit the eastern plains, just east of Eads in Kiowa County. Then on Monday night, a 3.7 magnitude earthquake hit 11 miles north of Craig in northwestern Colorado.

These quakes were small and no damage was reported, but geologists learned a fault in Kiowa County may be longer and more powerful than originally thought.

Sunday's earthquake was located near, but not on the Cheraw fault. The fault is one of the three most dangerous faults in Colorado and until Sunday, was thought to be capable of producing a magnitude 7.0 earthquake.

Vince Matthews, Director of the Colorado Geological Survey said the new quake may prove the Cheraw fault runs much farther to the east.

"If that fault does indeed extend out there, then it's possible that it could have a larger earthquake than what is thought now," Matthews said.

He said if the fault does prove to be longer, it could produce a magnitude 8.0 earthquake. He said that kind of quake would cause catastrophic damage in southeastern Colorado and would even cause significant damage in Denver.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/20452654/detail.html

 

[monovillage]

Mono, please pull out an analysis of the dam using modern code and methods to show us what it could withstand?

The shaking is not what would kill it. A differential response or deflection in the support strata would.

The analysis was behind a pay wall, which is another thing that bugs me.

 

[monovillage]

Here's an opinion piece I agree with. Frankly I don't know who the author is or the paper she writes for. Worth a post.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ate-is-a-disaster-for-science/article2255673/

"There’s nothing wrong with uncertainty in science. What’s wrong is denying it exists. “They were attacking skeptics for questioning the science, but in private, they were questioning it themselves,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph who is a leading climate-science critic, told me. He thinks the entire IPCC process needs to be rebuilt from scratch."

"Instead of distancing themselves from the shenanigans, the broader climate-science community has treated the central figures in Climategate like persecuted heroes. That is a terrible mistake, because it erodes the credibility of the entire field. The suppression of legitimate debate is a catastrophe for climate science. It’s also a catastrophe for science, period."

 

[sandorski]

Here's an opinion piece I agree with. Frankly I don't know who the author is or the paper she writes for. Worth a post.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ate-is-a-disaster-for-science/article2255673/

"There’s nothing wrong with uncertainty in science. What’s wrong is denying it exists. “They were attacking skeptics for questioning the science, but in private, they were questioning it themselves,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph who is a leading climate-science critic, told me. He thinks the entire IPCC process needs to be rebuilt from scratch."

"Instead of distancing themselves from the shenanigans, the broader climate-science community has treated the central figures in Climategate like persecuted heroes. That is a terrible mistake, because it erodes the credibility of the entire field. The suppression of legitimate debate is a catastrophe for climate science. It’s also a catastrophe for science, period."

/facepalm

Again with the fail. No one is denying Uncertainty, which is why every single thing is framed within a context of the Certainty involved. Meaning, that any prediction is always followed by a Certainty figure that is never "100%".

"Legitimate debate" is perfectly fine and welcome, however, not all people objecting/raising concerns are involved in legitimate debate. Deniers are such persons, raising stupid objection after stupid objection, often contradicting themselves, and regularly changing their positions 180 degrees within a few days then back again a few days later. Essentially just making Noise that they point to as evidence of "Debate". They are engaged in no such thing.

 

[monovillage]

"Environment Minister Peter Kent has done us all a favour by stating the obvious: Canada has no intention of signing on to a new Kyoto deal."

Good news.

In case you can't/didn't make it to Durban
Beer & Wine Climate Change Summit at Duffy’s Tavern Dec. 15
http://springcreekhomesteading.word...limate-change-summit-at-duffys-tavern-dec-15/