Hoping for what? Something besides reality....
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
Can anybody explain to me how Science DAILY can put out a graph in May 2008 (I guess that is a year old already)... anyway, their graph is accurate to the tenth of a degree back to 1960. But, lacks any data from 1998 to present (only future predictions).
Then someone cited a 2007 article (only 2 years old) that cites a 1992 poll about scientific consensus.
Oh, and why did that Science Daily graph stop in 1960?
In 1969, Oregon experienced its record snowfall in much of the Western part of the state... only surpassed in a smaller portion of the state this year.
In the early 70's (for 2 or 3 years in a row), Oregon also experienced record cold temperatures, and there was talk of a coming ice age... And, I believe this at least affected the entire northern hemisphere. This would be an excellent time to start a temperature comparison.
I have no doubt that we can affect our environment.
Has anybody asked why it can be up to 10 degrees hotter in cities in the summer than in the neighboring countryside? How does the growth of cities affect the temperature and climate? What is the direct impact of heating houses in the winter (through combustion, electrical heat, etc). Note, cooling houses is merely displacing heat outside of the home, and has minimal overall impact other than the tremendous amount of energy required for this process.
But, I also believe that our understanding of how we impact long-term environmental trends is in its infancy, and the prehistorical climate models are difficult to interpret with any accuracy.
Look at the Wikipedia graph:
It is a little hard to read since it runs time backwards and ice volume with low being above high.
However, we are currently in an interglacial period of unknown duration that has lasted approximately 10,000 years, which is close to the average length of interglacial periods.
What is clear are a few things...
Anyway, there are many details that haven't, and probably won't ever be determined including the impact of tectonic shift on climates, as well as whether the speed of tectonic shift is constant or variable, or perhaps even catastrophic.
If global warming is real, it is far less than the naturally occurring cycles on earth.
And, furthermore, nobody knows the true impact of global warming.
Certainly there could be a shift in species, as has occurred on earth for millions of years as climates naturally changed.
Arid regions will likely become hotter... However, more temperate, or even downright cold regions could become even better for cultivation and human habitation.
I'm sure, while many Russians fear any global change... many would prefer -20 degree weather in the winter rather than -30 degree weather.
Paradoxically, some of the nations that could have the greatest negative impact of climate change are those in the middle east which are best situated to have a real impact of lowering global carbon emissions.
Those temperatures posted in the graph are for sea surface temperatures or SST's. This was reserch that caused a lot of rebuttal in the scientific comunity including a 5000 dollar bet against from the people at Real climate as to the acuracy of the predictions.
The report was trying to show the coralation between SST's and global ocean currents and their effect on atmosphereic temperature trends. They predicted the warming trend to slow (but not stop) over the next ten years. It's not exactly accepted science with a lot of conflicting veiws being presented in the scientific comunity but just to clarify here's a quote from the article from one of the authors
"Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years
The graph was based on the SST's from that period to provide the base data for the Ocean data and your right it stops in /98 the observed data from then(/98) till now does not follow what was predicted so the graph doesn't predict whats been happening so far,not with any acuracy anyway.
That was all the SST data that was accurate or needed for use in the prediction. There was an uproar earlier last year on the SST's from the second world war that had temperature anomolies from Navy to Navy in their proceedures of mesurment. these anomolies have been explaind through the different types of measurement proceedures and can now be properly graphed to account for the differences. My belief is that because that wasn't available at the time of this publication the war time SST's wern't used to avoid this confict.
As for the Financial Post editorial It's just that,an opinion from a known "Sceptic" (and I use that term loosly)and not a scientific representation of the facts ans the scientists now know them. I'd advoid trusting newpapers unless you can research the news itself to find the truth and not just from one mans point of view.
The truth is 95% of world wide climatologists as polled agree that AGW is real,this poll is only a few months old,was presented for peer review and has caused barly a ripple in the scientific comunity
21 years off the grid and counting
One just missed us a week or so ago when a Tungusta sized object passed about 1/4 of the way to the Moon by Earth and wasn't seen untill about a day or two away.
The tungusta meteor wiped out 80 million trees in 1908 in Siberia and flattened a killometers sized area
What if that happens over a populated area?
21 years off the grid and counting
There is one fairly obvious reason. Cities, with all that tarmac and concrete, make very good thermal sinks. They don't cool down much at night. If anyone douts this, pick an evening after a hot day and stand for a few minutes in the road. Then go stand on a lawn.
That Tungusta meteor.
Dan, I never expected you to fall into the trap.
The first rule of investigation is to always go back to the source.
1, No one ever found a trace of a meteor in the tungusta region. It is one of the possibilities that it was a meteor. could have been a bit of comet or something else.
2, But most importantly, and this is the bit that is in the original story, stated by the Russian that went out there and looked, what ever it was it changed direction before heading towards Lake Bikal before exploding. Witnesses report this. Meteors don't change course.
This omission has allowed the belief that it must have been a meteor to become dominant. No one ever questions it. It makes for a more 'neat' explanation. If I ever find the book again I'll give more detail.
No no one has but all the evidence points in that direction. It was an overhead explosion as evidenced by the trees still standing minus all their branches at the epicenter. This is a known effect of atomic blasts as well
I've never heard that before. Original explorations didn't get to to site till 1926 I believe since it's so remote an area and I'm not sure it was a Rusian expedition. As for the witnessed direction change I've never heard this,If you have any links I'd be happy to read them.
whether it was a meteor or not the size to blast ratio is the same size as what just went by Earth recently. I guess my point was that objects this size that can cause a lot of damage arn't easy to spot apparently and could cause serious damage in a populus zone if it ever happened
21 years off the grid and counting
A few years ago an Italian team visited the Tunguska site, taking a boat and some acoustic sounding gear to explore Lake Cheko (see BBC story). The small (1/2 Km) lake appears to be an impact crater, and has a conical shaped bottom that would not maintain it's shape if naturally occuring. Since there were no detailed maps of the region before the event, the existance of the lake prior to the event wasn't documented. The obvious conclusion (which they were very cautious to only speculate about) was that the lake may have been formed by the impact of a large remnant of the Tunguska meteorite, and it's still down there. They were hoping to return with better equipment to do some sampling, some day.
I hadn't heard of anyone reporting to have seen an object (other than ufologists) that changed direction. Indeed, I hadn't heard of anyone seeing it directly at all. The locals reported the effects (heat, blast), but reported seeing nothing other than a flash that covered the sky.
The Graf Zepplin took the first aerial photos of the Tunguska area during its round-the-world trip in 1929. It wasn't visited again by air until quite recently.
The book I refer to is an account of Leonid Kulik's expedition into the area. It's a very old book and it is many years since I read it. But as it was in our local library I may be able to get hold of it. The bit about the fireball changing direction was the thing that stuck in my mind at the time. It was reported by villagers who saw the object coming in. The only point in me mentioning it is that it is something that, although in the documentation, is never mentioned. If it did occur in this manner then it does cause some difficulty for the meteor theory.
I'm aware that ufo buffs have jumped on this aspect of the original report, but don't particularly subscribe to it myself. The idea of a metallic/stony meteor exploding above the ground is feasible, but as such it does pose the problem of no evidence. That is the problem with the whole thing.
I should point out that I am very sceptical in my view of documentories ; even from the BBC.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|