|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-17-2010, 10:31 AM
Quote:
 a god with devine power who has gone nuts and thinks hes a mortal human, however that has nothing to do with chaos. at the end of the day we humans are changing the chemical composition within the atmosphere. the climate is a chaotic system thus even a small input at one end, due to the feedback within the system, can have a large effect. it can also have an unpredictable effect and the chances of the earth simply getting uniformly hotter bit by bit is impossible. and what we learn from other chaotic systems is that, it may get colder, or more windy, or less windy, or wetter or dryer etc. etc. on the way. 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-18-2010, 01:38 PM
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-19-2010, 02:44 PM
just siome quotes
"No matter how many times we say that "global warming" means a rise of average temperature across the world, decade by decade, and not every year being consistently warmer than the last in every place on Earth, there are still those that get this mixed up." "Last year was actually the fifth warmest year on record as far as global temperatures were concerned. The four warmest years were, in ascending order, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 1998. The last decade was the warmest on record, followed by the 1990s and then the 1980s, so the world is definitely warming up. "
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-19-2010, 10:54 PM
Really good program about Chaos.
its BBC so not sure if it will work outside UK. but its really good, and also has a good production value so lots of snazzy visuals. BBC iPlayer - The Secret Life of Chaos enjoy
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-19-2010, 11:58 PM
Super farce! Listen to Alan Watt. Cutting Through the Matrix with Alan Watt - Clearing the rubbish from the road to reality
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-20-2010, 01:20 AM
Quote:
So why didn't IPCC scientists use temperature measurements from rural areas? Because the temperatures in the countryside were at best, unchanged, and at worst, were declining. Once again, in regards to the hacked emails from East Anglia's CRU, IPCC scientists admit to each other that there has been no global warming since 1961!. And they talk about the trick they use (cherry-picking data stations), and truncating tree ring data to create an artificial chart which shows a temperature increase. Is climate the average of temperature taken over decades? Or would averages taken over a period of centuries be better? As of now, taking 2009 and 2010 into account, in a century-long measurement of average climate temperatures there has been no warming! An interesting read: "For much of the Northern Hemisphere, the cold is abating. As climate scientists long realized, a short period does not create a trend. Even global warming advocates, who insisted that the 1998 El Nino warming was a trend, are now claiming that the cold does not contradict their warming trend. Their time spans are evidently extremely adjustable. The week ended with real heat: Climategate hit the United States. On Thursday night January 14, 2010, in an hour-long special broadcast on KUSI-TV San Diego, John Coleman revealed new research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. This new research demonstrates that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has been as intensely involved in manipulating global surface data as has the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, which is now under investigation in Great Britain. NCDC is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The manipulated data is also used by the third organization reporting global surface temperatures – the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA GISS). Thus, all three organizations reporting global surface temperatures may be using similar manipulated data. D’Aleo and Smith report that in the period of the 1960’s to the 1980’s the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. But it dropped rapidly to about 1,500 by 1990. Further, large gaps began appearing in some of the reported data. This loss of stations and its possible consequences have been well established. For example, it is discussed in the 2008 NIPCC reportNature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The stations lost appeared to be mostly in colder climates – which, if the data set is not adjusted, would lead to a false indication of warming. (D’Aleo was a contributor to the NIPCC report.) In December, as Climategate was developing, TWTW referred to a Russian report stating the CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. Thus, the data loss was not due to just the closing of stations as earlier thought, but due to decisions by the CRU to ignore them. Now D’Aleo and Smith report similar activities by the NCDC. Stations have been dropped, particularly in colder climates (higher elevations or closer to the Polar Regions), and now temperatures are projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates. The reports of the IPCC and governmental agencies such as the EPA are based, in a large part, on these data. If the data are wrong, then the reports are wrong. It is now clear that the global surface temperature data are unreliable and must be thoroughly investigated. If not, any government policies based upon these reports should be rigorously challenged. Thanks to the diligent work of John Coleman, Joe D’Aleo, Michael Smith, as well as many others, the US main stream media has no excuse for ignoring Climategate as merely a problem in Britain or a problem of no significance."
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-21-2010, 06:47 AM
The world's most famous climate change expert is at the center of a massive controversy as the leading environmental science institute he heads scrambled to explain its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers will melt completely in 25 years.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, said this week that the U.N. body was studying how its 2007 report to the United Nations derived information that led to its famous conclusion: that the glaciers will melt by 2035. Today, the IPCC issued a statement offering regret for the poorly vetted statements. "The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures," the statement says, though it goes short of issuing a full retraction or reprinting the report. Pachauri told Reuters on Monday that the group was looking into the issue, and planned to "take a position on it in the next two or three days." The IPCC's 2007 report, simply titled AR4, claimed that "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." Officials would not respond to a request for additional comment. IPCC is expected to withdraw the report's claim eventually. Hundreds of millions of people in India, Pakistan and China would be severely affected if the glaciers were actually to melt. There are some 9,500 Himalayan glaciers. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh questioned the findings of the 2007 report during a news conference. "They are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern," Ramesh said of the glaciers. But, he said, the IPCC's 2035 forecast was "not based on an iota of scientific evidence." One of the key elements in the growing scandal is the revelation that IPCC based some of its public proclamations on non-peer reviewed reports. "The data, all the data, needs to come to light," says Dr. Jane M. Orient, president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and an outspoken skeptic on climate change. "Thousands of scientists are capable of assessing it. The only reason to keep it hidden, locked in the clutches of the elite few, is that it decisively disproves their computer models and shows that their draconian emission controls are based on nothing except a lust for power, control and profit." The IPCC "made a clear and obvious error when it stated that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035," added Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, in an interview. "The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists." A letter just released to the Science Web site underscores the mistake. Written by J. Graham Cogley of the department of geography at Canada's Trent University, it points out that "the claim that Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035 ... conflicts with knowledge of glacier-climate relationships, and is wrong." The dustup is the latest scandal in global warming science, coming after the disclosure of attempts to shade climate-science research findings at the U.K.'s East Anglia University and the failed talks in Copenhagen by environmental policymakers last month. The IPCC report had indicated that the total area of Himalayan glaciers would shrink from 500,000 square kilometers to 100,000 square kilometers within 25 years. The study cited a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental advocacy group. The WWF study cited a 1999 article in New Scientist magazine that quoted another expert, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers could disappear within forty years. The speculative comments were not peer reviewed, and other reports have indicated that the glaciers are not retreating abnormally. "Most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet per year, and most are far lower," Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of the department of geology at Western Washington University. Pachauri, the IPCC chief, is under attack on another front, as well, as newspaper reports in India have commented repeatedly on his reportedly lavish lifestyle. TERI receives funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, both of which did not respond to requests for comment. Reports indicate that there also are concerns in the United Kingdom surrounding 10 million British pounds in funding for TERI, and questions about TERI's objectivity. "It's about time that somebody started following the money trail to the big interests that want to prosper from the green regime, while the rest of the economy is crushed," said Orient. "It's not as though the amount were a trickle."
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-21-2010, 09:22 AM
Quote:
Edit, actually, as of 2009 all of the ice has returned to the polar regions. Glaciers won't be far behind if snow continues to fall at the current, record levels.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
