I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:
P
:D
Printable View
I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:
P
:D
Thanks for that Noah, do you take AMEX?Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Sebastiaan
There's not a lot of room in Midge's ark, so he's only taking one of each species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
That will make for a very short lived monoculture.... or some interesting cross breeding.:oo:
BTW Midge you don't have to worry about the freeboard just remember to let out the anchor rope a bit.
this on is a bit of a classic, proof that some of Al Gores 'facts' in his movie are quite wrong and proof that NASA has been fudging figures on the GW issue for some time...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...weather_error/
Quote:
NASA weather error sparks global warming debate
1998 no longer hottest year in US
By Austin Modine in Mountain View <small class="MoreByAuthor">→ More by this author</small>
<small>Published Tuesday 14th August 2007 20:28 GMT</small>
Find your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech vacancies Conservative blogs were alight last week when they turned up an error in NASA's methods for recording US temperatures. As a result, it has been concluded that 1934, not 1998, was America's hottest year on record.
The problem was caught when blogger, Stephen McIntyre of <cite>Climate Audit</cite>, crunched the numbers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for himself. McIntyre found that apparently an error was affecting the data for the years 2000 through 2006.
<script type="text/javascript"> document.write('\x3Cscript src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.science.4159/space;'+RegExCats+GetVCs()+'pid='+RegId+';'+RegKW+'maid='+maid+';test='+test+';pf='+RegPF+';dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=' + rand + '?" type="text/javascript">\x3C\/script>'); </script><script src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.science.4159/space;vc=sci.space;pid=68786;kw=weather;kw=nasa;kw=error;kw=global;kw=warming;maid=;test=;pf=0;dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=98562781748558260?" type="text/javascript"></script><iframe src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/iview/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903?click=http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3f" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"> <a href="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/AUM/go/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" target="_blank"><img src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/view/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903"/></a><noscript><a href="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/AUM/go/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/view/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" /></a></noscript></iframe> <noscript> http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/ad/reg....AAEmo4vsAAAG5? </noscript>
Or more accurately, after 1999, the data wasn't being fractionally adjusted to compensate for the time of day or location from where the data was being gathered. McIntyre emailed his discovery to NASA's Goddard Institute, which prompted the data review.
The data correction reduced the mean US temperature by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000 through 2006, for an average of 0.66 ºC. The news was a delight to global warming naysayers — such as the conservative blogger Noel Sheppard at <cite>NewsBusters</cite> —who claimed it refutes a key tenet of the global warming "myth" advanced by Al Gore that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995. They also claim the lack of coverage on the mistake indicates a liberal media cover-up.
The new top 10 hottest years in the US are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.
Global warming skeptics point out that now four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.
During the Depression, figures, as if things werent tough enough.... Good post Reeves,Quote:
Originally Posted by reeves
Sebastiaan
Its also worth reading what the IPCC have published on the subject. This paper isnt terribly heavy going but lays out the science clearly,
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_TS.pdf
Sebastiaan
Sebastian i have collected the various IPCC reports and read through them, some are pretty heavy going. I became interested in their process of 'consensus' and found a fair bit of comment from scientists on the panel about that, some of whom had resigned from the IPCC process citing political interference.. check this post from Dr Landsea, a former member of the IPCC panel http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ea_leaves.htmlI have also collected vast amounts of web links and data and read through Flannerys Weathermakers book and seen Al Gores Movie as well the GW Swindle movie. On other forums I have setup a skepticsm thread to collate various GW sketic issueQuote:
Dear colleagues, After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/...d=45483#p45483
as well responding to various media on the issue
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/...d=58770#p58770
at the moment i am just reserving my own judgment on the GW issue and trolling thorugh the dozens of goodle news feeds that fall into my mailbox everyday. Sure is an interesting issue...
heres another quote from a member of the IPCC panel..
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/3111/
So it seems that IPCC scientists who are critical of the 'consensus' process or who dont agree with the stance taken in the report are ignored or ostracised.Quote:
Kellow, who before heading up government studies in Tasmania was Professor of Social Sciences in the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University, is less than impressed. ‘They really do emphasise the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this. This will be a warmer and wetter world according to the models. But if you look at this report, which is still to be finalised, it would seem that no rain will fall in any form that’s at all useful. You’ll have droughts, torrential rain, storms.’
Even though he has participated in the IPCC process (he was a referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC’s report, which covers ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment’), Kellow is exasperated by the way in which critical responses to chapters are dealt with. He has noted elsewhere the criticisms he made to the IPCC about the way in which negative effects are overstated and the ability to adapt is understated. Yet he says: ‘I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.’
For Kellow, the IPCC process is hopelessly politicised. ‘The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments. Governments fund the exercise and sign-off on it ultimately’, he tells me. Kellow sees more mileage in the Asia-Pacific Partnership or AP6 (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States), which takes the approach of developing new technologies rather than adopting the Kyoto approach of emissions reductions.
The final report is not put together by scientists but by clerks, editors and information officers..as pointe don in the GW Swindle movie, as an arm of the UN, the IPCC is a political organisation with political aims...
This a beauty
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...utility-stocks
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...18/WARMING.TMPQuote:
California’s Global Warming Watchdog Owns Oil, Coal and Utility Stocks
<!-- start main content -->
<small>By Noel Sheppard | August 18, 2007 - 18:26 ET </small>
Here's a headline you'd never expect to see:
Global Warming Watchdog Invests in Oil, Coal, UtilitiesThink I'm kidding? Well, check the link. Making the issue that much more delicious, it was the leading front-page story in Saturday's San Francisco Chronicle (emphasis added throughout):
The new chair of the California Air Resources Board owns stocks in several oil, coal and utility firms, some of which are likely to be affected by rules the agency implements as part of the state's groundbreaking law to fight global warming, The Chronicle has learned.Hehehehe. I'm verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.
Mary Nichols' stock holdings include shares in oil giants Chevron Corp., BP and Royal Dutch Shell, as well as a stake in a Bermuda tanker company that transports crude oil, according to economic interest statements she filed this week.
She also owns stock in the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp., along with utilities including Edison International, whose subsidiary, Southern California Edison, serves most of the Southern California electricity market.
In total, she and her attorney husband, John Daum, who represents Exxon in the ongoing Exxon Valdez oil-spill case, have a financial stake in 13 energy-related firms in a diversified stock portfolio that contains 84 companies, according to statements she filed on Aug. 14 with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Quote:
Global warming watchdog invests in oil, coal, utilities
Investments will be put in a blind trust, chairwoman of Air Resources Board says
Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Saturday, August 18, 2007
<script language="javascript"><!-- OAS_RICH('x90'); //--></script>
<!--/.toolset-->
<!--/.articletools--> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> sfgate_get_fprefs(); </script>(08-18) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The new chair of the California Air Resources Board owns stocks in several oil, coal and utility firms, some of which are likely to be affected by rules the agency implements as part of the state's groundbreaking law to fight global warming, The Chronicle has learned.
Mary Nichols' stock holdings include shares in oil giants Chevron Corp., BP and Royal Dutch Shell, as well as a stake in a Bermuda tanker company that transports crude oil, according to economic interest statements she filed this week.
She also owns stock in the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp., along with utilities including Edison International, whose subsidiary, Southern California Edison, serves most of the Southern California electricity market.
In total, she and her attorney husband, John Daum, who represents Exxon in the ongoing Exxon Valdez oil-spill case, have a financial stake in 13 energy-related firms in a diversified stock portfolio that contains 84 companies, according to statements she filed on Aug. 14 with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
The air board is expected to consider wide-ranging regulations that will affect what kind of fuel motorists pump into their vehicles and help dictate what sources of energy utility companies can use to generate electricity.
Nichols told The Chronicle this week that she realized there would be a conflict of interest when she filled out the economic disclosure form shortly after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced her appointment on July 3. But rather than divest in those companies, she said she plans to place her investments in a blind trust and plans to have that in place before the next air board meeting, which is set for Sept. 27.
"I think it's a wise policy for regulators to divest themselves from holdings in companies that they regulate," said Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern. "It's important to avoid any conflict of interest, and it's important to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest."
However, in late July, Nichols presided over two days of board meetings, one of which resulted in the adoption of regulations to limit emissions on off-road diesel vehicles such as construction equipment.
She said she didn't believe her stock holdings in oil companies were in conflict with her action because the regulations affect construction equipment owners and not fuel companies.
However, air board spokesman Leo Kay said Friday that the agency's general counsel office is "considering that issue as we speak." The general counsel was unaware of Nichols' stock ownership until a Chronicle reporter called Thursday afternoon to ask about her potential conflict of interest.
This is not the first time Nichols has disclosed extensive stock holdings while working in government. She owned shares in Chevron, Valero Energy Corp., Enron Corp. and other energy firms when she served as Resources Agency secretary under then-Gov. Gray Davis and sat on the California Coastal Commission as a Davis appointee before his recall in 2003.
Nichols said there was no reason to set up a blind trust at that time because she believed there was no conflict as secretary of the resources agency since her job was to advise the governor rather than make policy or regulatory decisions. On the Coastal Commission, it was easy to recuse herself from matters because the commission's actions usually affected individual companies, she said.
"But at the Air Resources Board, we rarely pass a rule that affects just one company," she said. "And with the new responsibility of implementing AB32, we will likely develop regulations that likely will affect every single sector."
That's why she believes setting up a blind trust is the prudent option at this time, Nichols said. Blind trusts have been a method of choice for handling personal investments for some public officials, including Schwarzenegger.
Five of the stock ownerships she disclosed in her recent statements, including the Chevron stock, are worth between $100,001 and $1 million each, and 78 of them are each worth between $10,001 and $100,000, according to the disclosure filing. The fair market value and nature of investment for a banking firm was not included in her statement.
"This is family money, and it's a joint decision (between my husband and me), and the decision is to invest it for the best long-term yield for us and our family," Nichols said.
Some state Capitol observers were surprised that Nichols, who is highly regarded in the environmental community as a longtime environmental lawyer who served on the air board three decades ago under then-Gov. Jerry Brown, would own shares in oil and coal firms.
"My perception is that she is a living legend in the environmental community, and I would have bet that she would have a greener portfolio," said Barbara O'Connor, director of Sacramento State University's Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media.
John Pitney, Jr., political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, said while not every public official's personal finances should be raised as an issue, higher profile positions do matter at least in public perception and a chairmanship on the state air board is one of them.
The air board's responsibility to implement AB32 has elevated the agency's status, and it came under scrutiny earlier this summer when Schwarzenegger fired then-chairman Robert Sawyer after he tried to enact more pollution-saving measures than the three approved by the governor's staff.
Sawyer's firing was followed by the resignation of the air board's executive director, placing the agency in further turmoil and causing Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups to question the governor's commitment to fight global warming. Within a week, Schwarzenegger announced Nichols as Sawyer's replacement, drawing praise from those same critics.
Her appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate, which has a year to make that decision.
Andrew LaMar, a spokesman for state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, who chairs the rules committee, said the committee "will take a look at her holdings in vetting her appointment as the chair of the Air Resources Board."
While he said it is encouraging that Nichols is considering creating a blind trust, LaMar said the "public has a right to know what the financial interests are for officials who are representing them."
<!--/articlecontent --> This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Looks like good ol NASA is copping some serious flak for being so wrong in it's climate measurements.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...crat_hans.html
Probably not good news for pro CC/GW supporters as it indicates that a lot of the data their views are based on may be innaccurate but definatlely good news for those labelled as skeptics who have always felt and copped a lot of flak for holding the view that the 'consensus' may wrong and that there is more to be learnt about the issue.Quote:
When a freelance investigator finds serious flaws in the work of prominent scientists receiving hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayer-funded research, there is a great cause for concern. Undoubtedly, this incident will trigger an avalanche of investigators taking a closer look at the work of these researchers. Just as Ward Churchill's inflammatory remarks put his work under a microscope, Hansen and NASA should expect the same in the days ahead. There is a conspicuous lack of transparency in his methodology and data. He will come under pressure to release everything so that other reaearchers can have at it.
It means there just might be more openess and transparency in future in terms of who can analyse what data is collected by mainstream organisations such as NASA.
You could try pulling up the anchor :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
we could just breed that bacteria (Cyanobacteria) that caused the last ice age. I am doing my share with the old plates and tea cups in the shed they seam to be growing green furry stuff.
as far as im consernd man made global warmig is just a big load of crap.
the tempriture is rising yes but the enviroment goes in cycles you just watch pretty soon they will be telling us that there is global cooling.
what i cant understand is how can global worming cause more droughts AND more floods it has to be one or the other you cant have both.
But only at high tide, low tide should be ok :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
I wouldn't exactly say that they are 'so wrong'. It could be a conspiracy, or it could be an honest mistake. Regardless of this, apart from the fact that it changes the 'record year' (but only just), it has very little impact on the statistics as a whole. To put it in perspective, it changes this to this and I can't tell the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by reeves
There's also the fact that the US only comprises 2% of the Earths surface, so the change that this error makes to global statistics is illustrated here.
Of course finding a statistical error is something for the skeptics to crow about, regardless of how inconsequential it may be. OMG It's a conspiracy! :oo:
Sources:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007...ly_disprov.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/...ore-and-after/
And here is a graph for Australia from BOM.
The impact we humans make is infintessimal. I'd like all the GW aficanados to answer this. up to about the 11 century Greenland supported extensive agricultural cropping. The north of England had grape vines - why because it was warmer then. Now who was driving the cars and the powerhouses back then??
The world has continually gone through warm & cool periods. The earth's orbit about the sunis not as fixed as people thing, It moves out by a couple fo thousand kilometers - it gets colder, it moves in gets warmer. The polititians can legislate till there balck in the face and they wont' stop that
Colin Howkins
Graceville Qld:o
Quote:
It means there just might be more openess and transparency in future in terms of who can analyse what data is collected by mainstream organisations such as NASA.
Hi Reeves,
I wish, but I doubt it, spin and lies will continue, sifting through the data to produce information is the key. I seriously doubt that all the data will be published, we will see
theres more interesting and well researched material from Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University.
http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/Carter/AIE%20Melbourne%203.rtf
http://www.aie.org.au/pubs/Climate.docQuote:
Ten facts about Climate Change they don't want you to know
1. Climate has always changed, and always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no significant atmospheric warming or cooling since then. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect.
3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$40 billion dollars on climate research since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~3.6% of the total greenhouse effect, of which only a miniscule 0.12% can be attributed to human activity. (Water, at ~95% of the effect, is by far the most important component in the atmosphere; what was that about hydrogen-powered cars?)
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a mild positive temperature feedback).
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby, leading to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, recently retired as Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost up to 100 trillion dollars, will have a devastating effect on the economies of those countries that have signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto is a "first step", it is in the wrong direction.
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model will be able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change. Australian State Premiers please take note.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. And thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study.
Reference Material
Books
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. & Kellow, A. 2002 International Environmental Policy. Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Protocol. Edward Elgar, 214 pp. (ISBN 1 84064818 X).
Burroughs, W. (ed.) 2003 Climate into the 21st Century. World Meteorological Organis. & Cambridge Univ. Press, 240 pp.
Crichton, M. 2004 State of Fear. HarperCollins, New York (ISBN 0-06-621413-0)
Essex, C. & McKitrick, R. 2002 Taken by Storm. The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming. Key Porter paperback (ISBN 1 55263 212 1, available from Amazon CANADA).
Gerhard, L.C. et al. 2001 Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology #47 (ISBN 0 89181 053 6, available from AAPG website).
Gray, V. 2002 The Greenhouse Delusion A Critique of "Climate Change 2001". Multi-Science Publish. (ISBN 0 906522 14 5 • pp. 95 • £11.50)
Houghton, J.T. et al. 2001 Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, Working Group 3, Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, 881 pp.
Kininmonth, W. 2004 Climate Change: A Natural Hazard. Multi-Science Publish. (ISBN 0 906522 26 9 • pp. viii + 208 • £39)
Labohm, H., Rozendaal, S & Thoenes, D. 2004 Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma. Multi-Science Publishing, 192 pp. (ISBN 0 906522 25 0)
McMichael,, P. J. 2004 Meltdown. The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media Cato Institute, 208 pp. (ISBN: 1-930865-59-7; order at http://www.catostore.org/index.asp)
Ruddiman, W.F. 2001 Earth's Climate, Past & Future. Freeman & Company, New York, 465 pp.
Recommended websites
www.john-daly.com/http://www.john-daly.com (considered contrarian viewpoints)
www.co2science.org (analysis and comment on climate-related issues)
academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm#med_opt (climate over the last 10,000 years)
www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters/nl2000_1.pdf (PAGES - past global climate changes)
www.warwickhughes.com (considered contrarian viewpoints)
www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm (Doug Hoyt’s critical analysis)
www.co2andclimate.org/climate (analysis and comment on climate-related issues)
www.lavoisier.com.au (discussion and links on greenhouse)
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html (critical analysis of the famous hockey-stick graph)
www.scientific-alliance.org/events_items/past_events/19jandebate.htm (environmental analyses)
ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Beth_Caissie/Milankovitch.htm (summary of Milankovitch theory)
www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20030320a.shtml (John Zillman World Climate address)
www.bom.gov.au (Australian Bureau of Meteorology site; much high quality climate data)
www.numberwatch.co.uk (John Brignell on the unsound use of public statistics)
mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm (John McLean critical summary and links on global warming)
www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf (Chris de Freitas on CO2)
wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=33083 (essay by Jack Hollander)
http://www.climateaudit.org (critical analysis of climate matters, but be aware that this is a "sceptics" site).
http://www.realclimate.org (good discussion and information, but be aware that this is a pro-GW site)
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/Carter20...TEBROCHURE.pdf (views on climate change by 6 Australians)
good points Pawnhead, NASA is certainly downplaying the level of error as irrelevant and the skeptics camp has latched on onto it. It does raise questions though about the integrity of their process and the implied integrity of people who have used those figures to promote GW alarmism such as Al Gore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawnhead
It may well have been an honest mistake from NASA, but then so was not looking at the heatproof tiles more closley on the belly of the last space shuttle that exploded upon re-entry ;-)
One asian chick one african chick one swede chick.............................Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
Studley
Reeves
thanks for the info.
I don't think that you're suggesting that that was some sort of conspiracy, so I'd have to agree with you in that a minor inconsequential error has taken on catastrophic proportions when placed in the hands of the skeptics. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by reeves
Fluctuations in climate due to variations in the track of the earth around the sun and variations in the planets axis of rotation (you left that one out) are easy to seperate from climatic fluctuations due to other factors. You can measure the orientation of the earths axis of rotation and you can measure the current position of the planet in relation to the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Howkins
When you talk about climate change you should always state over what time scale youre talking. Climate change is like tracking the stock market. If you only tracked the ASX over a 17 day period up to mid last week youd say were heading for a major recession. If you pan out and look at the stock market over the last 20 years you see a totally different picture....you see an overal rising trend but within that trend you see smaller scale dips and rises. Its the same with tracking climate change over time. Over time weve had multiple periods of glacials and intervening interglacial periods. The last ice age ended circa 10,000 years ago. Within each glacial or interglacial however there have been smaller scale fluctuations such as Europe's periods of cooler climate over the periods 1150-1460 and 1560-1850.
Cheers Martin (Geologist)
In what is possibly a good example of the greenhouse gas solution carbon 'offestting' gone too far, moose populations are being used an example of a contributor to global warming. Apparently one moose in a year will release the same amount of of greenhouse gases as a road trip around australia in an average sized car.
The solution, help save the planet, shoot a moose today!
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,819135,00.jpg
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-26040,00.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/moose-metha...ers-norwegiansQuote:
Moose emissions put wind up Norwegians
Roger Boyes, Berlin | August 24, 2007
THEY are dubbed the "Kings of the Forest" and are regarded by Norwegians as their national symbol.
Now, though, scientists have calculated that because of their increased burping and farting, the placid moose is an eco-killer.
During a single year, according to the latest research, a full-grown moose expels -- from both ends of its body -- the methane equivalent of 2100kg of carbon dioxide emissions.
That is as destructive for the atmosphere as the emissions released by 13,000km of car travel.
"To put it into perspective, the return flight from Oslo to Santiago in Chile leaves a carbon footprint of 880 kilos," said biologist Reidar Andersen.
"Shoot a moose and you have saved the equivalent of two long-haul flights."
The findings, from the technical university in Trondheim, place Scandinavians in a dilemma. Many are dedicated winter tourists to Asian destinations such as Bali and Thailand.
Is shooting moose about to become a fashionable way of easing their troubled environmental consciences?
Researchers in Scotland and Wales have been examining how the feeding of dairy cows could be changed to cut back their gaseous belching. No such work has been possible, however, on Norway's 120,000 wild moose.
Already, though, climate change has so altered their eating habits that they are involved in an environmentally vicious circle of increasing gas emissions. It began when snows started to recede in Norway.
"Moose normally eat branches in the winter, a not particularly nutritious diet," said Erling Solberg of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. "But since snow has become so much rarer, they have access to wild blueberries."
The result has been fatter moose that are more likely to break wind.
Moreover, better-fed, the moose have started to reproduce more quickly and the herds are swelling.
Last winter, there were reports of moose straying into towns in search of yet more food -- eating Christmas decorations and smashing shop windows to reach displayed vegetables.
Norwegians are pleading for higher hunt quotas to keep the moose numbers down and their emissions under control.
The hunting season begins on September 25 and the authorities have allowed a kill quota of 35,000.
"Think of it this way: remove a moose from the world and you have saved the equivalent of 36 flights between Oslo and Trondheim," said Professor Andersen, who hunts moose and researches their gas output.
The Kyoto protocol counts a tonne of expelled methane equivalent to 21 tonnes of CO2. The World Resources Institute estimates that 14per cent of global greenhouse emissions are down to methane, a third of which is produced by cows and dung.
The Times
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...501145,00.htmlQuote:
Environment News
Moose Methane Bothers Norwegians
In spite of the fact that the moose is Norway's national symbol, Norwegians want to kill more of them to keep gas emissions under control. Scientists there claim that climate changes have led to the increased burping and farting of increasing numbers of moose, with one full-grown moose expelling (from both ends) the methane equivalent of 2,100 kg. of carbon dioxide emissions. They say that a return flight from Oslo to Santiago, Chile, leaves a carbon footprint of 880 kilos. Shooting one moose saves the equivalent of two long-haul flights.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1949645.eceQuote:
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching
The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.
Now poor moose are being blamed for global warming.
DPA
Now poor moose are being blamed for global warming.
Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.
Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.
Bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon dioxide gas. Cows pose the same problem (more...).
Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.
so if your a moose, u better run !Quote:
Burping moose bad for the environment
Amidst all the talk about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming comes news that Norway's national mascot may be contributing to the destruction of the environment, through burping and other bodily functions.
The country's so-called "King of the Forest" hasn't been widely viewed as having any really nasty personal habits, surely none that could be considered an environmental threat.
But now some researchers linked to Norway's technical university (NTNU) in Trondheim contend that moose are responsible for tons of gas emissions a year through their frequent burping and, well, farting.
"Shoot a moose and save yourself a climate quota," joked moose researcher (and moose hunter) Reidar Andersen at NTNU to newspaper VG on Tuesday. He's published a book on the life of a moose.
And he's only half joking. The research web site www.forskning.no has calculated that the annual gas emissions from a moose are equal to those from an individual's 36 flights between Oslo and Trondheim.
A grown moose will burp and pass so much methane gas in the course of a year that it amounts to 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide emissions.
Newspaper VG reported that a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit the same.
Bacteria in a moose's stomach create the methane gas, which in turn breaks down the plant fibers the moose has eaten. Excess gas is (ahem) farted out, and methane gas is considered more destructive than carbon gas. Cows are also a source of such gas emissions, while pigs and chickens are more environmentally considerate.
VG reported that 120,000 moose wander around in Norwegian forests. This year's looming moose hunt (elgjakt), which begins September 25, will eliminate an estimated 35,000 of them.
does anyone wonder if humans actually produce more GG's than moose ?
So obviously the Norwegians need Moosetraps :D
Emissions from Cattle have been a CSIRO project for a number of years, some people get all the good jobs.....
Note where it says that climate change has forced a change in the Mooses diet which in turn leads to greater CO2 output from the animals gut. In the same article you have the moose as a contributer to climate change and then in the same article you have the Moose as a victim of climate change. This is cr*p journalism and its diverting attention away from the real issue which is the effect that _humans_ have on the climate of this planet.
If humans suddenly disappeared from the planet then I doubt the Moose would have any impact on the world's climate at all. Human activity (including domesticated animals) contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere than every wild animal on the planet.
For those of you who watched Martin Durkin's documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" have a read of the comments on this website and note in particular Durkin's response to errors in his documentary that he himself has acknowledged but has refused to amend.
http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
TLDNRQuote:
Originally Posted by reeves
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tldnr
People don't read long posts on the internets unless they are very, very interested in the topic.
Rather than just quoting acres of the internet, how about we save a few electrons on behalf of the planet...
woodbe.
Alot of people seem to be able to afford the time to read the label on a beer bottle or spend an hour studying the form at Randwick.
I guess it boils down to what you think is important in your life.
Im a scientist so I guess I find the issue of climate change more interesting than most. Science has always had a problem conveying itself to the layman...its the white coat syndrome. Most scientists can talk their science to a fellow scientist till the cows come home but stick the same scientist in front of a layman and ask him to explain his science then few scientists can accomplish the task.
Yes it is, but thats an example of what the GW issue has become. It's turned into a witchhunt where any scapegaot is a good one and the fundemental practices of modern human society are often ignored in the alarmist zealor thats been promoted far and wide on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
I think the journalism in that article is fine, its points out whats happening, the mooses diet changes and the moose pumps out more gas than it did before, no fault of the moose. I posted 4 articles on the same issue to give some diversity to it in terms of examining news on GW.
I wonder if humans who live on a diet of freshly cooked moose will fart more ?
I wonder if you suggested hunting down a few billion humans to ease the strain on resources 'causing' GW, would you be very popular...
hahhah , i'll make em 4 times as long if want, i just posted the actual article sin the page to save people loading new pages to read em..besides its all moot really, or moose as the phrase would have it..Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe.
There's a lot more cows than moose around, and according to this article "The methane produced by a single cow is equivalent to 2,622 kilos of carbon dioxide."
We need to take advantage of Cow Power and turn their dung into electricity. :2tsup:
Apparently Roos don't produce methane.
Researchers have identified an enzyme in a roo's gut that may be usable in cows to prevent methane production
Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in climate change, and I read a lot about it, but the internet discussion of the issue is generally polarised, and when people start posting big tracts of text onto internet forums, they're usually showing lots of stuff that supports their own opinion, and surprisingly, there is a lot more where that came from. Sends me to sleep...
And I don't read beer bottle labels or Randwick Form guides kiwego :)
woodbe.
ahh yes its definatley my opinion that whole issue has gone way beyond the science and reached increasing levels of absurdity, hypocrisy and ignorance, hence the Moose post...i dont have any problem with people posting wads of text, the internet is not exactly short of it..Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
i get the google news feeds daily and post to a few other forums on the issue and it never ceases to amaze me the diverse angles to which this issue has grown to encompass, i have also read several books and watched most of the docos i could
heres some more posts with gargantuan wads of text, have a good snooze...;-)
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/...ic.php?id=2433
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/...ic.php?id=3473
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/...d=61285#p61285
not for a while now, do horses product methane? I know I do,Quote:
Alot of people seem to be able to afford the time to read the label on a beer bottle or spend an hour studying the form at Randwick.