Indeed - if a journalist who specialises in conspiracy theories reports on the musings of retired school principal who has "a deep seated scepticism for anything produced by governments, political parties, religious organisations" it is incumbent on us all to dismiss the findings of NASA out of hand.Originally Posted by Illustro
Its just great when these big icebergs break off.
There is far too much ice in the Antartic.
This will provide a great boost for the fledgling Antartic tourist industry
As for the penguins?
Many tourists have complained about penguin poo.
The penguins will survive no problem and all the tons of penguin poo on that vast iceberg will simply dissolve into the Southern Ocean.
It will be recycled along with all other marine life poo to provide rich & neccessary nutrients.
Indeed it will even benefit whales which I am delighted to see are being fished again by brave whalers.
Last edited by The Field Marshal; 26th February 2010 at 05:27 PM.
How sure are warmy alarmists that the information they have is so rock solid? Even something as fundamental as measurements of global temperatures. Just by way of background, the most reliable data on temperatures should come from industrialized economies, like the US.
These two graphs show some of the interesting things that happen to temperature data:
First, look at the raw temperature data for the US, broken down into rural and urban locations:
Now have a look at exactly the same data after it has received the processing treatment:
Tadah!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Third Assessment Report: “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
i love the organisation that produced those charts. they are such a rock solid source that their chief policy advisor is Lord Monckton of UKIP and their chief science advisor been involved in plenty of Exxon funded research. He was also described by another scientist as being "maligned as a nutcase"
Exxon's funding of polar bear research questioned - environment - 28 October 2007 - New Scientist
but sure, I might read the paper later anyway.
It's good to see mods are clamping down again on the proliferation of climate threads.
Makes it so much easier to stay on top of the conversation.
A newcomer highlighted the droughts in Australasia which is one of the few places the western media pays attention to the impact of climate change especially since Black Saturday. A couple of blogs worth following are ABC's Clive Hamiltons series and Deltoid.
ABC The Drum Unleashed - Clive Hamilton
Deltoid
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.
Firstly it would be at least polite to link to the article and paper you're quoting from rather than simply producing graphs as if the quality of their construction was beyond refutation.
The paper is here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im..._NCDC_Data.pdf
The wattsupwiththat post you pulled the graphs from is here A new paper comparing NCDC rural and urban US surface temperature data Watts Up With That?
Secondly this is not a comparison of US rural versus urban data it's a comparison of a single rural and a single urban station from each US state, a highly dubious thing to do when the same analysis could be run against all data.
Thirdly and this is basically a repeat of my point above: The source code that performs these corrections is fully available as is the documentation and research papers it's based upon. The author could easily review it and determine the exact reason for each correction but instead prefers to simply allege there's a difference (based on dubious station selection) and then infer nefarious reasons for there being such a difference.
Why did the thread discussing a weather phenomenon get moved? Is this not the environment section of the forum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...te_and_weather
"No one rules if no one obeys" - Tao
How to survive the coming century - environment - 25 February 2009 - New Scientist
This is a useful article for the overview it gives of the best case scenario for humans coping with the potential 4 degree temp rise over the next century. The measures which will need to be adopted to sustain a population of 7 billion are considered. It is a four page article for which a range of climatologists were consulted - some very pessimistic and others more optimistic. I highly recommend reading the article in full but here are a few tasters.
The first problem would be that many of the places where people live and grow food would no longer be suitable for either. Rising sea levels - from thermal expansion of the oceans, melting glaciers and storm surges - would drown today's coastal regions in up to 2 metres of water initially, and possibly much more if the Greenland ice sheet and parts of Antarctica were to melt. "It's hard to see west Antarctica's ice sheets surviving the century, meaning a sea-level rise of at least 1 or 2 metres," says climatologist James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "CO2 concentrations of 550 parts per million [compared with about 385 ppm now] would be disastrous," he adds, "certainly leading to an ice-free planet, with sea level about 80 metres higher... and the trip getting there would be horrendous."......
Half of the world's surface lies in the tropics, between 30° and -30° latitude, and these areas are particularly vulnerable to climate change. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example, will feel the force of a shorter but fiercer Asian monsoon, which will probably cause even more devastating floods than the area suffers now. Yet because the land will be hotter, this water will evaporate faster, leaving drought across Asia. Bangladesh stands to lose a third of its land area - including its main bread basket.....
All of the world's major deserts are predicted to expand, with the Sahara reaching right into central Europe.
Glacial retreat will dry Europe's rivers from the Danube to the Rhine, with similar effects in mountainous regions including the Peruvian Andes, and the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges, which as result will no longer supply water to Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Bhutan, India and Vietnam.......
Along with the exhaustion of aquifers, all this will lead to two latitudinal dry belts where human habitation will be impossible, say Syukuro Manabe of Tokyo University, Japan, and his colleagues. One will stretch across Central America, southern Europe and north Africa, south Asia and Japan; while the other will cover Madagascar, southern Africa, the Pacific Islands, and most of Australia and Chile......The good news is that we in Ireland are living in the belt which will sustain human life. The bad news is that it's going to get very very crowded for our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.In order to survive, humans may need to do something radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms of resource distribution. "We are locked into a mindset that each country has to be self-sustaining in food, water and energy," Cox says. "We need to look at the world afresh and see it in terms of where the resources are, and then plan the population, food and energy production around that.....
These precious lands with access to water would be valuable food-growing areas, as well as the last oases for many species, so people would be need to be housed in compact, high-rise cities. Living this closely together will bring problems of its own. Disease could easily spread through the crowded population so early warning systems will be needed to monitor any outbreaks.
Last edited by imokyrok; 27th February 2010 at 06:39 PM.
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.
Sorry the image is so big. It's neater here
http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...7/26971701.jpg
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.
I t is the same sort of evidence we have now seen come to light in other parts of the world
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Third Assessment Report: “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
662Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
