|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-17-2009, 05:40 PM
News:
Hadley Center and CRU Apparently Cherry-picked Russia’s Climate Data 'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian • The Register Met Office 'manipulated climate change figures' say Russian think tank | Mail Online Talks continue to breakdown. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-17-2009, 05:46 PM
Quote:
[ ♥<-- Jordan's heart! \(Ò_ó)/ ]
Follow me on TUMBLR "Well if a chick has a problem with the way I conduct myself I'd draw the bitch a map to the nearest exit and stamp "fuck off" on her forehead." - Pot Roast
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-17-2009, 06:10 PM
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online
An interesting read. Pretty long, however.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-17-2009, 06:51 PM
This debate reminds me of the movie "The day after tomorrow". they say global warming is happening then the vice president says its stupid then all kinds of crazy sh$% goes down then the vice president realizes the truth.
we ignore some truth's until it hits us in the face. i think whether you believe in global warming is up to you, but you can't ignore the fact that pollution is real. we even took measures to cut down on pollution. it's probably what started the whole global warming theory, our pollution of green house gases into the air. no matter how you look at it smoke in the air isn't exactly good for you. we can take steps to reduce pollutants.   "Im too drunk to taste this chicken" - colonel sanders
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-17-2009, 06:58 PM
Quote:
It is too bad the facts are so mired in controversy and politics and are difficult to see.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-17-2009, 06:59 PM
Quote:
Pollution is different. I agree pollution is something that should be sorted.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-18-2009, 12:03 AM
Quote:
What the UN is after in this case is to be given the authority to regulate businesses and governments worldwide, to tax them and then spend the revenue gained as they see fit. Global warming is merely an excuse to this end.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-18-2009, 12:23 AM
Quote:
As you probably know, most of that visible pollution you see eventually settles to the ground. The problem with LA is that it is situated in a basin, next to the ocean, where it receives a constantly westerly wind, so the pollution is trapped between the sea and the mountains, and can't escape. It's not a good thing, but compared to what it was like in the 70's when I was an elementary school student, things are much improved. It's been more than 20 years since the last time kids were kept in their classrooms during recess because of smog alerts. LA and other large cities have seen temperatures increase significantly over the last century, but this has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or global warming, as the temperatures in areas around the cities have remained essentially unchanged. Large cities have seen temperatures increase because of the large amounts if asphalt, concrete, and other materials which absorb heat, and hold it for long periods of time, combined with huge amounts of heat-generating machinery. I've noticed that in Tokyo many of the streets are now being painted or coated to prevent them from absorbing heat. Many new buildings are also now being coated with new materials which reflect heat, rather than absorb it. Signs at construction sites tout these new materials, and how they will help keep the city cooler. Many scientists who are advocates of man-made global warming have attributed the cause more to land-use issues than greenhouse gases, but their research has gone largely ignored by the IPCC and the UN. Why? Because land-use is not something which can be easily regulated or taxed as land in most countries is privately owned. The UN is only interested in finding causes of global warming which it can exploit monetarily and politically.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Global Warming in Russia exaggerated -
12-18-2009, 01:13 AM
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. Here is an email from Michael Mann talking about his effort to stifle criticism of the CRU's Russian data: Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-18-2009, 09:44 AM
i dunno guy's for me its basic physics.
molecules such as water vapour, co2, methane etc. are called greenhouse gasses for a reason. this is because they readily absorb IR radiation and then re-radiate it. so if you apply heat to a body of say 02 and an identical body of co2. the o2 will allow most of the heat to pass through it. the co2 molecules however will absorb and re-radiate the heat. thus the gas will get hotter at a rate greater than the body of gas containing o2. please look at this video BBC News - Newsnight - Kitchen experiment 'proves' science of global warming its a basic school expermiment being carried out. and it proves that co2 does increase the heat of a volume of gas. and as everything in the earth is remaining constant the temperature will go up. also its dangerous to say (and also shows a lack of deeper understanding) "but the average global tempererature is staying the same" global warming will effect different regions in different ways. some will get warmer, some will get colder. some will simply get wetter, others will get dryer. and as the main producer of greenhouse gasses, how can in not be man made.?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
