Slashdot Mirror
Warming and Slowing the World
chrisleonard writes "We all know that global warming is supposed to heat the planet up, but did you know that it might also slow it down? According to a report from Belgium's Royal Observatory (as reported here by astronomy.com), if the days seem a little longer to you than they used to, it might not be just old age catching up with you. Would it be wrong to call the interaction of the world's warming temperatures and its slowing rotation ... a snowball effect?"
2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Source Caveman develops the axe and releases it under the GPL. The axe quickly gains popularity as a means of crushing moderators' heads.
100,000 B.C.: Man domesticates the AIBO.
10,000 B.C.: Civilization begins when early farmers first learn to cultivate hot grits.
3000 B.C.: Sumerians develop a primitive cuneiform perl script.
2920 B.C.: A legendary flood sweeps Slashdot, filling up a Borland / Inprise story with hundreds of offtopic posts.
1750 B.C.: Hammurabi, a Mesopotamian king, codifies the first EULA.
490 B.C.: Greek city-states unite to defeat the Persians. ESR triumphantly proclaims that the Greeks "get it".
399 B.C.: Socrates is convicted of impiety. Despite the efforts of freesocrates.com, he is forced to kill himself by drinking hemlock.
336 B.C.: Fat-Time Charlie becomes King of Macedonia and conquers Persia.
4 B.C.: Following the Star (as in hot young actress) of Bethelem, wise men travel from far away to troll for baby Jesus.
A.D. 476: The Roman Empire BSODs.
A.D. 610: The Glorious MEEPT!! founds Islam after receiving a revelation from God. Following his disappearance from Slashdot in 632, a succession dispute results in the emergence of two troll factions: the Pythonni and the Perliites.
A.D. 800: Charlemagne conquers nearly all of Germany, only to be acquired by andover.net.
A.D. 874: Linus the Red discovers Iceland.
A.D. 1000: The epic of the Beowulf Cluster is written down. It is the first English epic poem.
A.D. 1095: Pope Bruce II calls for a crusade against the Turks when it is revealed they are violating the GPL. Later investigation reveals that Pope Bruce II had not yet contacted the Turks before calling for the crusade.
A.D. 1215: Bowing to pressure to open-source the British government, King John signs the Magna Carta, limiting the British monarchy's power. ESR triumphantly proclaims that the British monarchy "gets it".
A.D. 1348: The ILOVEYOU virus kills over half the population of Europe. (The other half was not using Outlook.)
A.D. 1420: Johann Gutenberg invents the printing press. He is immediately sued by monks claiming that the technology will promote the copying of hand-transcribed books, thus violating the church's intellectual property.
A.D. 1429: Natalie Portman of Arc gathers an army of Slashdot trolls to do battle with the moderators. She is eventually tried as a heretic and stoned (as in petrified).
A.D. 1478: The Catholic Church partners with doubleclick.net to launch the Spanish Inquisition.
A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he believes to be "India", but which RMS informs him is actually "GNU/India".
A.D. 1508-12: Michaelengelo attempts to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling with ASCII art, only to have his plan thwarted by the "Lameness Filter."
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
A.D. 1553: "Bloody" Mary ascends the throne of England and begins an infamous crusade against Protestants. ESR eats his words.
A.D. 1588: The "IF I EVER MEET YOU, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS" guy meets the Spanish Armada.
A.D. 1603: Tokugawa Ieyasu unites the feuding pancake-eating ninjas of Japan.
A.D. 1611: Mattel adds Galileo Galilei to its CyberPatrol block list for proposing that the Earth revolves around the sun.
A.D. 1688: In the so-called "Glorious Revolution", King James II is bloodlessly forced out of power and flees to France. ESR again triumphantly proclaims that the British monarchy "gets it".
A.D. 1692: Anti-GIF hysteria in the New World comes to a head in the infamous "Salem GIF Trials", in which 20 alleged GIFs are burned at the stake. Later investigation reveals that many of the supposed GIFs were actually PNGs.
A.D. 1769: James Watt patents the one-click steam engine.
A.D. 1776: Trolls, angered by CmdrTaco's passage of the Moderation Act, rebel. After a several-year flame war, the trolls succeed in seceding from Slashdot and forming the United Coalition of Trolls.
A.D. 1789: The French Revolution begins with a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the Bastille.
A.D. 1799: Attempts at discovering Egyptian hieroglyphs receive a major boost when Napoleon's troops discover the Rosetta stone. Sadly, the stone is quickly outlawed under the DMCA as an illegal means of circumventing encryption.
A.D. 1844: Samuel Morse invents Morse code. Cryptography export restrictions prevent the telegraph's use outside the U.S. and Canada.
A.D. 1853: United States Commodore Matthew C. Perry arrives in Japan and forces the xenophobic nation to open its doors to foreign trade. ESR triumphantly proclaims that Japan finally "gets it".
A.D. 1865: President Lincoln is 'bitchslapped.' The nation mourns.
A.D. 1901: Italian inventor Guglielmo Marcoli first demonstrates the radio. Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich immediately delivers to Marcoli a list of 335,435 suspected radio users.
A.D. 1911: Facing a break-up by the United States Supreme Court, Standard Oil Co. defends its "freedom to innovate" and proposes numerous rejected settlements. Slashbots mock the company as "Standa~1" and depict John D. Rockefeller as a member of the Borg.
A.D. 1929: V.A. Linux's stock drops over 200 dollars on "Black Tuesday", October 29th.
A.D. 1945: In the secret Manhattan Project, scientists working in Los Alamos, New Mexico, construct a nuclear bomb from Star Wars Legos.
A.D. 1948: Slashdot runs the infamous headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." Shamefaced, the site quickly retracts the story when numerous readers point out that it is not news for nerds, stuff that matters.
A.D. 1965: Jon Katz delivers his famous "I Have A Post-Hellmouth Dream" speech, which stated: "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the geeks of former slaves and the geeks of former slave geeks will be able to sit down together at the table of geeks... I have a dream that my geek little geeks will one geek live in a nation where they will not be geeked by the geek of their geek but by the geek of their geek."
A.D. 1969: Neil Armstrong becomes the first man to set foot on the moon. His immortal words: "FIRST MOONWALK!!!"
A.D. 1970: Ohio National Guardsmen shoot four students at Kent State University for "Internet theft".
A.D. 1989: The United States invades Panama to capture renowned "hacker" Manual Noriega, who is suspected of writing the DeCSS utility.
A.D. 1990: West Germany and East Germany reunite after 45 years of separation. ESR triumphantly proclaims that Germany "gets it".
A.D. 1994: As years of apartheid rule finally end, Nelson Mandela is elected president of South Africa. ESR is sick, and sadly misses his chance to triumphantly proclaim that South Africa "gets it".
A.D. 1997: Slashdot reports that Scottish scientists have succeeded in cloning a female sheep named Dolly. Numerous readers complain that if they had wanted information on the latest sheep releases, they would have just gone to freshsheep.net
A.D. 1999: Miramax announces Don Knotts to play hacker Emmanuel Goldstein in upcoming movie "Takedown"
I am into the copy and paste.
Now when I'm choking in the horrible atmosphere of a post-Bush presidency world I'll have a 25 hour day
Now longer nights, on the other hand... More time for [insert favourite nocturnal activity here] :-)
/Styx
is more profoundly affected by tidal locking with the moon than fluvial effects.
Anybody who knew better please comment on this?
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
when the poles shift in 15,000 -20,000 years, killing most life, shifting the Earth's plates, and plunging the planet into an ice age, it won't matter much to us.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Does this mean my work day just got longer?!?!
:)
Spam removed for the Internet's pleasure
Its time for the causation police to spring into action here. Corellation != causation.
I thought this might be an interesting study to read about until I read it, and got to the part that says, 'Viron's team found that earthlings can expect the length of an average day to increase by 11 millionths of a second per decade' I bet these scientists could think of something a little more relavent to life as it affects us in our lifetime to research.
Don't Tread on Me
We're taking mass from the earth and putting it in gaseous form farther out from the center. Now remember what happens when an ice skater starts spinning and then extends their hands- they slow down. It seems like the same concept.
Makes since to me that the corrupt industrial military complex of the west would be working on underhanded means to increase the work week without employee consent. Fits in perfectly with what I was taught in school.
I guess, I will now read the article after commenting on the title.
Oh... my... GOD! The ramifications of this are... uh, on second thought, never mind.
Pshaw, I bet we could accelerate the Earth more effectively than that if we'd all get together on the first of every month, point all our cars West, and punch the accelerator simultaneously.
So if we're only talking about one ten-thousandth of a second by the close of the century, does this have the possibility of significantly affecting the lengths of days in the long run? If this continued to "snowball", would we be able to observe the changes on diurnal rhythms or would the events associated with global warming overshadow them?
This increase is so small that no human will ever notice the increase during their lifetime, much less on a day to day scale.
You obviously haven't lived in Australia in the past couple of decades ...
Wow, this hypothesis suggests that global warming may result in the Earth slowing down its rotation by 11 microseconds per decade. I had better make sure my earthquake insurance is paid up.
What they don't mention is how much NORMAL slowdown we can expect from other causes, such as the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon. I don't recall the numbers, but I am sure the moon will be a much larger factor than the variation in air currents.
A dingo ate my sig...
1/10000 of a second every century we shall slow down.
This means, that to gain ONE SECOND of our preciously short day, we will have to wait 1 MILLION years. This means, that by the time the
sun explodes, our day will be approximately 83 minutes longer. I'm sorry if I choose not to get excited about this.
In retrospect, the earth's rotation is slowing due to other factors, primarily tidal forces from the moon at a rate of 22 seconds every million years. It will eventually slow to the point where it takes one month to make a complete revolution, in perfect tidal lock with the moon. Or at least it would, although its still unlikely to make it before the sun goes.
Either way, I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Of all the scares from global warming, this is one of the least disconcerting.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
let's see, around here in Montreal the temperature used to be like -20 degrees celsius at this time of year. Well this winter, it's like -6 degrees celsius. I don't feel like we're in winter.
the one thing i'd like to know though, is if these trends we are seeing are meerly an effect of cyclical behavior of the the earth's atmosphere... or adverse reactions to the way mankind has used (or abused depending upon your opinion) the natural resources of our planet.
anyone have any interesting links to articles about this?
And precisely 10 milliseconds per decade.
Although there is so much supposed controversy around global warming I for one can attest to witnessing it first hand growing up in Austin, Texas. Every year consistently since I was a boy the summer temperatures have hit new record highs and for longer and longer periods of time. Last summer there was three weeks where the daily high temp did not drop below 100.
Twenty years ago it was not unusual for the 90s during the summer but 100 rarely hit and only for a day or two.
Also, we had a real live swimming hole near where I lived. Although it was always dry during the summer, in the spring year after year it was full of nice cool fresh water.
That stopped happening ever since the late 80's and it is now a perpetual stink hole of stagnant run off water.
We need hydrogen and we need more nuclear power plants and we need them NOW! At the rate things are going, we are going to have MAJOR PROBLEMS in the year 2020.
And I'd personally rather run the risk of a nuclear meltdown in a rural area than thousands of fossil fuel burning powerplants filling the atmosphere with God knows how many thousands of tons of carcinogens (sp?) per year.
mje0w!!!1!
Once again, we see junk science at its very best.
/. once stood by the articles they published as fact. Viewers can now see /. for what it really is...another left wing taliban extremist rag just as misguided as the rest.
And leave it to the European Elitists to come up with another superficial factoid to scare the uneducated masses that attend American public schools. (Run by corrupt and illegitimate union biggots)
Of course, lets just sweep under the rug the fact that temperature "measurements" taken as recently as 9 years ago are scientifically flawed. Just put that out of your mind as you are lead like cattle to the slaughter.
Poor science funded by left wing extremists from a country with a SEVERELY depressed economy is no reason to discount Global Warming.
Anyone remember Global Cooling back in the 70's/80's? Of course not...it was perpetuated by the same quacks who are now beating the drum for Global Warming.
And to think
/. deservse its own forum/listing on crank.net
This winter, in Urbana, IL was the second warmest winter in recorded history. There was snowfall in Atlanta, it was mad as hell in Buffalo, but only a few inches of snowfall a few hundred miles away. The weather's been acting funny, and I'm beginning to think global warming is finally rearing its ugly head. We need to do something right here, right now. We should start with acting more sensibly with how we treat our surroundings. C'mon guys, time's not just slowing, its running out... (pun unintended)
Yeah, it's not like regional temperature changes with time or anything... That's why the land I live on is still covered in glaciers...
Please don't mod this any higher... Keep looking for something funnier than this. If you can't find a funnier post for this article, you shouldn't be reading /. for the jokes.
Ok this is a complete joke, the time loss being so slow. But I have to wonder where did they get their figures of global-warming increase. As sence the 80's the amount of toxins in the atmosphere has decreased. So it ultimatly makes absolutly no sence to me, I guess they went on we are pumping out X amounts of toxins a day figure, not accounting for the natural ability of the earth to fix itself.
(yeah, yeah - "off topic" - blow me!)
sic transit gloria mundi
The government should immediately take action and strap huge rockets to the earth to compensate for the millionth of a second we gain every decade. Of course, if we do that, the Chinese will turn their rocket the other way and supply it with more fuel just to destroy capitalism.
All these scientists that signed the 2nd paper discounted what the 1st guys said and they did it with an overwhelming number of people. Of course the media didn't cover that. The media never wants to cover something like that. Blood and guts sells. Death and destruction sells. Conspiracy sells. Telling the public that violence in schools is actually decreasing and is lower now than it was in the troubled 70s doesn't sell. Plastering a blood-splattered babbling kid on the evening news that "saw it all" sells.
Enough of my rambling. You've heard it all before. My question is, has anyone seen this Discovery episode? Does anyone know where more information can be had? I'd love to see the episode. It sounds like a good one. I still like the one that proved that something like 600 million years ago we had a Snow Ball Earth and the one that proved all human life as we know it today originated from deep within Africa. Both of those were good shows.
You need to get a fscking clue and read my post below. Global warming is media and policitcal hype. It's something to sell you on the evening news and sell you during political campaigns. That facts refute it. The media won't tell you that though. The weather has been acting odd this year. Here in the very southeast corner of Kansas tomorrow on the 18th of February the expected temp will be 65 degrees. That's odd. That doesn't prove that global warming is real.
Your question about a snowball effect can be answered with a simple no.
Really.. the our day could be 28 hours long, (hence our attempts at colonizing other planets) and it would make a very subtle difference.
Sure we would lose a couple million species of plants, and animals, but we would end up gaining those species back, as other life evolves in the new conditions... long term temperature changes would simply adjust.. we would have warmer days, and COLDER nights (as the planet would be away from the sun longer during the night).
The difference is probably something in the range of the difference in temperature between south Dakota (U.S.A) and Manitoba (Canada). A few degrees here, and there.. but people live in both places happily.
I concur with this even if the measurements were 100% accurate the models used to predict the weather 20 yrs from now can not accurately predict next months weather. In addition to that even if the earth warms, it has been warmer in the past. The fossil record shows us that the earth was once much hotter than it is now.
politics and science is a bad thing
In the southern parts of Australia, we often get Ozone hole warnings along with the normal weather.
IIRC, if the rotation of earth slows, the equator will get narrower, the poles will seem taller, and then the earth will change it's axial tilt. why doesn't the article provide any information or links to this information, or am i mistaken. If you don't personally believe these facts, go buy yourself a few tops, and spin them, and see what they do vs size. then smash some with a hammer and see how the spin.
however, does anyone have any proof to refute this information?
and if we have to wait a few thousand millenia to tell if their theories are correct, then aren't we being whistleblowers trying to get the information out now?!?
2^3 * 31 * 647
We're on a planet that has a 3 billion year history in which the climate has changed dramatically enough to put dinosaur fossils on Antarctica, evidence of undersea life on top of Mt. Everest, strange enough to feature a 20 megaton blast in Siberia 50 years before atom bombs were invented, and random enough to prevent our ability to accuratly forecast tomorrow's weather, AND we conclude based on less than 100 years of weather data that global warming is happening?
Forgive me, but I'm feeling a little like a mayfly seeing its first (and only) sunrise and worrying about global sunlighting.
If, due to global warming, ocean levels rise five feet, then (assuming a constant density, spherical earth) the rotation rate would slow down by about 1 part in 2 million, about 18 seconds a year.
Given that water is less dense than most of the rest of the earth, it would probably be only two or three seconds a year, but still a substantial amount.
I had seen some speculation that the magnetic field of the earth is due to a different rotation rate between the core and the rest of the earth. Changing these relative rates may be significant.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
...talked about this. The name of the essay was IIRC "The Inconstant Moon" and I first read it in The Sun Shines Bright, a collection of his science essays.
All I vaguely remember from the essay is that, once everything slows down enough, the moon should start spiralling inward. Friction with the atmosphere will destroy it, giving us a nice little ring system like Saturn's. However, that's supposed to take 7 billion years, while Sol will go red-giant in 5 billion years, so it's one of those "this would be really cool, but we'll all be dead by other means before we get to see it" events.
I hope I'm remembering the essay correctly. If you disagree, okay -- go read the essay and tell me what I forgot.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
much more pronounced than the one mentioned in the article (though of course not as dramatic as 1010011010 makes it sound)
much more likely than the one mentioned in the article
much more interesting than the one mentioned in the article
much more established than the one mentioned in the article
-- MarkusQ
P.S. There was a very interesting comparison floating around a few years back (it was cited against me in an argument about my shorting idiodic dot com stocks) between the global warming data and the exponential growth of the internet economy. I replied that I agreed, and that I thought both "trends" were drawing conclussions far in excess of the data.
Boy, did I get flamed.
If anybody has the article I'd love to have a link/copy.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to pipe up here.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1. The temperature that is used by most scientists to prove the world is "warming up" is taken at posts that have been established for circa 100 years. Any further back than that there's no guarantee that the information is accurate. As a result of scientists normally living in larger cities as opposed to country towns, most of those weather posts were set up beyond the outskirts of large towns/cities approximately one hundred years ago.
However, as is the nature of these cities, they have grown/sprawled to encompass these weather posts. Now, as any scientist can tell you, cities are warmer than their surrounding regions. It's known as the "urban heat island effect". Tarmac, cement and all those other human building materials absorb and retain a much greater proportion of the heat that hits them during the day than does undeveloped land. Try walking over bitumen during a hot day and then walk over dirt. You'll see what I mean.
As these hotter cities expand to encompass the temperature stations, the temperature recorded by them is artificially increased. However, it's an extremely localised effect - the city is warmer, yes, but there's no way that the city is warm enough to have any effect on the surrounding countryside. It doesn't warm the globe up.
So, to begin with, almost all the statistics the global warming proponents are chucking round are incorrect.
2. Furthermore, land covers only 1/3 of the earth's surface. The other 2/3 is the ocean. Funnily enough, scientists haven't measured the temperature of the ocean over the past 100 years - there are generally only temperature stations located on the land. So the statistics that I've outlined above, that I believe already are flawed, are no greater than 30% of the surface area of the planet.
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
4. From core samples that have been taken in various places over the planet, scientists have been able to determine both carbon dioxide and temperature levels. They've graphed both these over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, and guess what it showed - carbon dioxide moves as a result of temperature, as opposed to vice versa.
5. Another scientific experiment that's very interesting - in an isolated greenhouse, increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Guess what you'll find? That the trees/plants grow faster. And as such, increase their intake of carbon dioxide, and produce more oxygen!
As such, my opinion is that the effort that is spent worried about global warming should instead be re-directed towards the preservation of native habitats, especially old growth forests which are our greatest ally as carbon dioxide recyclers. They are, quite literally, the lungs of our planet.
-- james
ps For some of those statistics I've used above (NASA satellite links, core samples, etc) please head to http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
This is an independently (ie no finance from oil company, etc) run web site run by a man named John Daly, who like myself, believes that the Greenhouse Effect is nothing more than hot air.
thanks for proving the fact that anyone can make up objective conclusions from a bunch of subjective observations.
The Stone Age did not end for lack of stones, and when the oil age ends it will not be for lack of oil. --Bjorn Lomberg
Under higher temperate, gas will expand. So the atmosphere will expand, increasing in radius.
Since the earth has a very non-uniform density from center to outer atmospheric shell, the standard equation for moment of intertia does not apply, but if you consider the atmosphere a spherical shell, the midpoint of it's rotational mass has moved further from the center of the earth.
Thus, as the earth heats up, it spins slower.
It's the same effect you saw in the ice-skating in the Olympics - put out you arms and you spin slower.
Of course, this doesn't consider the fact that the expansion of the atmosphere reduces the density of the atmosphere, which may in fact slow or stop the heating of the earth. So it may be a chaotic cyclical process.
Yeah, and in places like Georgia and Florida, they've gotten snow this year. While here in Winnipeg, it's currently 15 degress Celcius above normal and no signs of cooling down before spring. Doesn't mean much beyond this: weather CHANGES from year to year, and from location to location. Anecdotes aside, there really is no reason to think anything bizarre is happening, except for the fact that newssellers need to do just that: sell news.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Ok, we have millions of people starving to death, wars all around us, the US gov't is taking away freedoms left and right, and we are worried about 1/1000000th of a second in the next 100 years? Give me a break, how did these people get funding. What a waste of time and money.
...did their model account for the reduced angular moment when ice caps in Greenland and Antartica melt off and slide into the ocean? Some of that ice is 2 miles thick, so it should make a difference. If this really becomes a problem, we can vaporize the Himalayas with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You might have missed where last week, the leader of a violent terrorist organization, which has taken credit for many bombings and destructive acts in the United States, was questioned before congress under oath.
The leader "plead the fifth" on everything.
The violent terrorist group? Earth Liberation Front (or something like that), a bunch of ecological extremists that the media happens to approve of.
It isn't that the media is deliberately biased, just that they tend to report what they support, and ignore as "not news" those things they disagree with.
Another example is defensive uses of firearms. 300 different stories published about the latest "school shooting", 2 of them accurately reported that the shooter was stopped by two other students (it was a college) who had their own firearms. The rest just said the perp was "tackled".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
We could build telescoping rods that expand out during the day or night and shrink during the night or day (whichever way we want) so we could extend one or the other. Want more sleep? Extend the rods!
Carl
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
Unless there's something more to it than what they say, then their explaination doesn't make sense at all. The explaination, "the atmosphere is speeding up, so the earth must be slowing down to conserve angular momentum" completly ignores all the energy being added to the system by the sun Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses trapping energy that would normally radiate out into space. Shouldn't adding enegry to the system effect the total angular momentum? Why should it be conserved by the earth slowing just because the atmosphere speeds up? The atmosphere isn't being sped up by the earth itself, it's being sped up by solar energy.
Of course i just finished a six pack so i could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
...if the days seem a little longer to you than they used to, it might not be just old age catching up with you...
Actually I was under the impression that time appeared to pass faster the older you grew. It's related to the fact you heart gradually slows down, and it's effect on your body clock..
Maybe this explains why my Grandad always seemed surprised when I slipped into a coma after a few hours listening to him drone about "the war", how he knew hist neighnours were plotting to steal the huge amounts of money he kept in a biscuit tin on his wardrobe, and stuff generally being easier for the youngans. To him, it probably seemed like a quick chat...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I also applaud you for posting this. The pettition you refer to has not received enough attention (see also). But even more important is to look at the data.
-- MarkusQ
Care for our planet, yes. Act as responsible stewards of our land and oceans, certainly. But spew bogus alarmist rhetoric to confuse and manipulate the mediagoing public, shame on you. This is junk science at its worst.
God damn, that is some fucking insiteful shit.
I'm going to go reflect on that by wacking my dick off.
Damn.
Ok, so your winter in Buffalo wasn't so cold. Neither was mine, and being just a hundred miles away from you I'm sure you're not lying.
I'd say this winter was at least 10 degrees C warmer than normal.
So, at this rate, we only have 3 more years to live! (hottest summer peaks are usually about 30 deg C -- at 60 deg C I'm sure to die!) Dear God, Chicken Little, where are you? Save me from myself! My car itself must be the factor! Everyone stop farting! The Mehane is killing me in more ways than one!
Argh... my head aches. I wish global warming were real. I want all my winters to be this mild forever.
Too bad common sense says that if it were warming by 10 deg per year alarm bells would be going off everywhere.
De Viron's team found that earthlings can expect the length of an average day to increase by 11 millionths of a second per decade, corresponding to an overall increase of about one ten-thousandth of a second by the close of the century.
OH MY GOD!!!! A HUNDRED MILLIONTHS OF A SECOND!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
This seems more like 'hey, look at this' then 'hey we have to do something!' I don't really think a few hundred thousanths of a second could screw anything up.
And those that say the earth would get hotter... we would also have longer nights as well.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Why? Because the change in the earth rotation is SO SMALL that it would take 90909 or so DECADES at their predicted rate to slow the rotation one whole second. This is just another example of 'news' that's nothing more then FUD for the masses. I suppose we're suppose to run around screaming "global warming is slowing down the earth!" like a bunch of Chicken Littles.
Move along, there's nothing more to see here.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Actually, the greatest contributors to carbon dioxide recycling are the microscopic photosynthetic organisms that float in the ocean.
All life did not die.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think that the idea of this being a snowball effect cannot be properly linked to global warming. There are too many variables in how the rotation of the earth changes to link it to just this one study unless you have other studies supporting it being the sole cause of the slowing.
Effect is a few millionths of a second and somebody had enough spare time to spread this news and comment on it. Would have been more useful if the scientists had explained what that tells us about the earth, etc. Still I suppose a sign of an advanced society is that people have time to waste on trivia.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The amount of CO2 going into the air is known... the affect on the weather is what's in question.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
... but you can bet the Slashdot crowd will ignore the facts on this one.
Please, just for a moment, put aside all of your preconceptions and assumptions and go out there and learn the facts . What you will discover in this process is that Global Warming is, in fact, quite real. Frighteningly real. And human beings are the cause.
You're always going to find scientists who will claim that Global Warming is a crock of shit. (A lot of those same scientists work for oil companies and other concerns.) But the truth of the matter is, the vast, VAST majority of the world's scientists overwhelmingly agree that Global Warming is very real and poses a significant threat to our ecosystem and our way of life.
This bullshit about the "myth" of Global Warming is largely a U.S. phenomenon. Most 1st world countries trust their scientists and completely understand that Global Warming is a very real threat. So much so that even China jumped on the bandwagon. The sole detractor at Kyoto is the good ol' U. S. of A. As usual, we've got our head in the sand.
A few of you have mentioned how the media has blown this out of proportion and is being alarmist, etc. The exact opposite is true. The media in the U.S. has ignored and sidelined the entire issue. People hate scary stuff. Doesn't sell. So they barely mention it. All the more reason that our government should continue to fund (and increase funding for) unbaised news sources like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
But my point is, go learn the facts before you show up here pretending you know them.
P.S. And keep an eye on the weather. It'll just get more and more obvious. Been quite a warm winter this year, wouldn't you say?
I saw something about this a couple of months ago on ABC's Nightly News. Aparentally the "Earth Day" 25 million years ago was only 22-23 hours.
Holy crap someone actually read my post! I feel honored.
OH NOES! TEH INTARWEB IS BORKEN!
I don't claim that this article is correct and I don't claim that the Discovery episode is incorrect. I am just saying that you should not adopt the information contained in one documentary as your new world view. Keep in mind that there are other explanations for everything. Newton's gravity model was once unquestionable.
Basically, as far as I can tell, the first paragraph is saying, "I heard about one study that contradicts another study."
Any time some study conclusively "proves" that blah de blah is true or false, it just smacks of scientific arrogance to me. You never have proof. Only evidence.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Finally, I've got some ammo for those "The Bible says a week, so the world was literally created
in a week" people.
Now I can explain how it was actually only 6.5 day..er..nevermind.
these fellows must have taken a different chemistry course that I.
In mine we were taught that when molecules were heated that they tended to move FASTER...
*shrugs*
who am I to argue with science...I merely
regurgitate information fed to me from a
pathetic high school chemistry instructor
who's idea of a good time was spying on Blue-footed Boobies.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I'm still trying to find out why the last few years have seen the
.000706 s faster
earth spinning faster than it has since the 1960's, despite a
long-term slowdown caused by tidal drag.
The last leap second was 1999-01-01, and I bet we won't have another
until 2004 or so. They used to come every year or two.
2001-08-02 was the day of fastest rotation in years:
than 86400 s, whereas the typical day fluctuates between zero and two
ms slower than 86400 s.
It varies significantly on a bimonthly cycle due to lunar influences.
August is currently the month with the fastest spins.
For background, see http://maia.usno.navy.mil/
For the raw data, take differences between the "UT1-UTC" column
at ftp://maia.usno.navy.mil:/ser7/ser7.dat
--Neal
Go IETF!
Global warming? It seems to be the latest fad by the environmentalists to get us to bend to their wills.
--Storm
I've a pet phrase for this: it's a "disaster of almost noticeable proportions". :-)
Hmmm.... I wonder what the increase of mass due to increased population does to the rate of rotation. Hmmmm... Anyone do the math on that?
*smile*
-Alex
Summary:
Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. These consequences relate to the newly discovered properties of the "inner core" of our planet.
see the article at http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html
It's quite intelligently studied.
Lucas -- lucas@thinko.net
the tidal effects slows down the earth at much faster than the predicted effect due to global warming. Each successive year is about 1 ms longer than the previous year due to tidal effect slow down (the extra angular momentum goes to moon which recedes earth by about 3 cm/yr). That translates to about 3 micro-second/year lengthening of the day.
Most people who buy into this 'problem' of global warming do not realize that it is actually a natural part of the Earth's Weather patterns. If you do a bit of reading, one would find out that the Earth works in cycles. Currently, we are rising to a peak, and then go into an Ice Age according to conjectures on Weather patterns from Historical Accounts, etc. Of course, as all who look at this sort of thing realize, it is all just theories, and we will never really know the truth.
>>>>> Too many people leave the light on when they are not home.
...is a bit over a hundred years of somewhat accurate measurements. After coming out of a century (the 1800s) which was known for being somewhat on the cold side.
Not a helluva significant trend.
If they can't reliably predict the weather tomorrow, how can they possibly pretend to predict the weather years from now?!?
The previous comment is completely off-topic, and should be moderated accordingly.
Let's clear this up once and for all: despite what you may have learned in school, where these environmental issues are comingled and bandied about interchangeably for political purposes, ozone depletion and global warming are entirely different animals. It's a shame that they are ever confused. It shows that people aren't really interested in the facts: each side wishes to blame the other as either "not caring" or "scaremongering."
Ozone depletion has been shown to be a result of chloroflurocarbons escaping (although they are heavier than air) into the upper atmosphere and breaking apart ozone molecules. Ozone depletion was much more universally accepted in the scientific community than the "other" environmental media darling, global warming.
Global warming, contrary to just about everything you see on the news, is NOT universally accepted in the scientific community. In fact, most of the data on which the alarming reports are based are self-contradictory (the data, not the reports). Some temperature data reporting stations show alarming increases, others don't.
Here's a great example of data that you WON'T see reported on the news, although when I first saw it, I thought it was really interesting:
Global Carbon Monoxide Measurements
At first you might just think, what does carbon monoxide have to do with Global Warming? LOTS! In any combustion process (like cars making carbon dioxide gas, one of the so-called "greenhouse gases") carbon monoxide is a byproduct. The highest concentrations of carbon monoxide in the environment show where the worst MAN-MADE greenhouse gas offenders are.
Well, as it turns out, naturally caused FOREST FIRES in South America and Africa completely DWARF the "industrialized" world's CO production! But don't take MY word for it: look at the satellite data yourselves in the above link.
I highly encourage all of you to be SKEPTICAL of everything you've ever been taught or read, without finding and looking at the data yourselves.
Does this make us live longer?
Stop the world I want to get of...oh. Well thanks then mate.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
i can finally get some sleep.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have a huge collection of spinning earth animated GIF's all ready for the next dot-com boom. Now I have to change them all to be 0.00000000001 frames-per-seconds slower.
F*cken SUV's!
Table-ized A.I.
I've always pondered this stupid little question:
Coastal sea levels are rising.. everyone attributes this to melting ice and global warming. What about new ocean life being born? If there was even a 10% increase in ocean life, our costal lines would be fsck'd.
Although I like how you made known the difference between global warming and ozone depletion. Could there be a relationship between the two? If we have a less protective ozone, would we be more likely to have extreme global warming/cooling?
since there's global warming happening on mars, too, maybe it's a result of the increased solar activity instead of the alleged greenhouse gases.
nah, it couldn't be a natural thing, the chicken littles wouldn't have anything to squawk about.
i watched a discovery show once explaining how the moon controls the earths rotation. without the earth, researches suggested that the earth would spin very fast, making life nearly impossible on earth. to add an extra piece of info to the puzzle, they brought up the theory of how the moon was created - by the collision with another planet, and that the moon is actually moving away from us at a few centimeters per year. the further away the moon, the faster the earth will spin. maybe the moon is in the right range for human life forms right now? which could explain why man has only been here a small time in comparison to the earths date line - but, could it also mean our time here is limited? their theory was the earth will spin faster, and, this article has other effects? which one to believe? :)
:)
i am sure a search on www.discovery.com should bring up something on this topic - its why i ordered cable in the first place
Comment removed based on user account deletion
on those days, do the uwary sometimes catch on fire?
The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one-- even the staunchest supporters of science and technology--had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years.
I am into the copy and paste.
No big deal... we can always have Superman spin the world backwards... or is it forwards?
The Reversal is coming!!! Well, in about 300,000 years, that is.
For those who aren't familiar with this physical phenomenon, the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself (changes polarity) every 300,000 years or so. Rather quick on a planetary time scale, huh?
There are lots of geophysicists interested in this field (paleomagnetism) because it requires some sophisticated modeling of how geodynamos work. Take a look: here for supercomputer modeling of the reversal
I'm not sure which to place my bets on first -- a) the Moon flying away from the Earth, b) the magnetic field reversing, or c) the Earth stopping its spin... Well, ok. It's b). But between a) and c)? I'm not so sure.
And from a nordic perspective global warming might not be that bad either :)
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
A team of professional futurologists established that the popular junk news site "Slashdot" will disappear in a puff of hot air in just 3 million years, or 8076 hours and 77 milliseconds. Researchers base their predictions on the fact that most of recently published articles are not even worthy of tabloids, scream sensationalism, are extremely stupid, and don't deserve reading.
Terrorists are feared to have contaminated drinking water in many regions around the US. The FBI claims water containing high concentrations of dihydrogen monoxide has been found near Washington DC, Pittsburg, and San Diego. Millions are feared in danger. If you have fallen ill after drinking non-bottled water, you are urged to visit your local doctor for the latest antibiotics.
Days are longer, eh? I will have to use this as argument the next time I have to ask the boss for a raise in pay. :-)
Anyone who tells you that they understand women or the weather is lying or very misguided.
We do not have, and probably never will, have enough weather and other atmospheric data to predict reliable trends in the weather. There are so many variables involved and so much chaos in the system that a simple curve fit of (man's activity vs. average temp somewhere) over 100 years doesn't mean squat! Reminds me of a couple friends who saw "trends" in the stock market right before losing their shirts.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
Err... you are aware that putting more water vapour into the atmosphere "makes the extremes greater". If anecdotal evidence is what we're looking for for, then Canberra's recent heavy rainfall should provide evidence of this.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1)
Do you have any evidence (peer-reviewed, of course) for this? Forgive my skeptism, but I would put more weight on the views of the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (taken from a joint statement made in the journal Science), than the word of a slashdot poster.
2)
This point is just wrong. If you had have paid more attention to the link which you posted, you would find a section on measurements of temperture change in the deep sea Southern Ocean.
3)
This point ignores that loss of ozone will cause a temperture decrease in the upper atmosphere, and that the satellite data has been reexamined, and found to show a increase in the temperture.
4)
Could you please supply a citation for this. I'm interested to see how they seperated out cause and effect. I looked through your supplied link, and didn't see it.
5)
Negative feed back mechanisms have been known about for years, plant growth especially. This have been taken into account in the climatical models.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
If we have a less protective ozone, would we be more likely to have extreme global warming/cooling? Less ozone would lead to a very slightly warmer earth (because less UV light would be absorped in the atmosphere, leading to more on the earth's surface), but the effect would be, IMHO, very slight relative to other factors.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
If you want to see an example of weather chaos in action, look at pictures of Mars from last October. A small dust storm grew into a planet-wide dust storm, causing real global warming due to the dust in the atmosphere.
Why does the origin of carbon monoxide production make you skeptical of global warming?
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
This is called HUMOR. There is a reason that there is an option called "Funny" for mod points. Use them. People who mark parent as "troll" or "offtopic" need to get a life....this is what makes the Slashdot community fun, guys! If you're here for the same-old boring serious crap, go to www.cnn.com!
is more profoundly affected by tidal locking with the moon than fluvial effects.
Anybody who knew better please comment on this?
Sure, I'll bite (m-w.com):
Main Entry: fluvial
Pronunciation: 'flü-vE-&l
1 : of, relating to, or living in a stream or river
2 : produced by the action of a stream
The article said nothing about rivers or streams... unless I'm misunderstanding your post?
After seeing loads of pseudo-science (on both sides), I took the time several months ago to look at the scientific literature and try to learn about the validity of claims that many laypeople made about global warming. The parent touched on a few of these, and I couldn't resist digging in...
1) Global temperature is decreasing.
No. Even the most cursory look into the subject should show this to be false. For an example, check out the graph on this page. Almost all of the literature I have read agrees on this. The debate comes in when you start talking about how much/why/is this natural?
2) The atmosphere already contains carbon dioxide and needs it in order to keep the Earth warm. Thus, more carbon dioxide is not bad.
While the atmosphere does contain significant amounts of CO2, the thing to remember is that it needs to maintain a balance. As an analogy, think of your body. If you don't have enough iron, you get sick (e.g. anemia). If you have too much iron, you also get sick.
One of the biggest sources of natural atmospheric CO2 is plant matter. At the end of the 19th century, human CO2 emissions were comparable to global plant matter emissions (~150 MMt). By the end of the 20th century, human emissions were 40 times greater than the plant CO2 emissions. You can check this up at the CDIAC site.
3) Global temperature increases can be explained by volcanic emissions.
Also not the case. In fact, one of the landmark papers (Mass, Portman 1989) actually showed that the net effect of each of the several largest 20th century volcanic eruptions was a decrease in global temperature. The reason for this is that, while volcanos do put significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, they also release substantial quantities of particulate matter (e.g. ash). The effect of the latter is to decrease the net amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.
4) Global warming can be explained via sun spots, orbit variations (Earth and/or lunar), etc.
I was unable to find very much evidence of this in the literature. I was, however, able to find a significant amount of "pop sci" articles supporting these theories.
The general consensus is that scientists do not know enough to fully evaluate the problem, but that humans do have a measurable effect on the atmosphere. The scientific side of the debate centers around the size of this effect, and whether or not it is significant. The atmosphere is incredibly complex, and we may never be able to fully describe it. To me, this appears to be as good an argument in favor of reducing emissions as any other.
On a side note, I found the following to be generally true of articles/papers about global warming: The "seriousness" and scientific legitimacy of such an article are inversely proportional to the concreteness of the claims. Papers claiming that "global warming is just a myth", that "global warming can be explained by some never-before-heard theory", or that "global warming is already upon us and will put most of the Earth's land underwater in the next few years" almost never appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while papers claiming that "we really don't know enough yet to make firm conclusions" almost never appear in pop sci magazines.
I'm old enough that I remember when I was in gradeschool, everyone was worried about the next ice age coming. Seriously! The scientists of the day concluded that all the pollution was blocking the sunlight and making the climate colder. To back up their theroy, they produced evidence of a decrease in temperature over some short period. Later, I learned in school about the 22 year solar cycle that affects the climate here on Sol-3 (and causes the 11 year sunspot cycle at each peak).
I haven't yet been convinced that Global Warming even exists. It's going to take a much larger and more accurate sample of worldwide temperatures to convince me.
A.C.
2. Furthermore, land covers only 1/3 of the earth's surface. The other 2/3 is the ocean. Funnily enough, scientists haven't measured the temperature of the ocean over the past 100 years - there are generally only temperature stations located on the land.
Uhhh...they have buoys in the ocean (as well as blimps, satellites, etc).
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
Apparently NASA is not aware of this. Funny thing is, their researchers believe the opposite.
If you actually read the two out of 300 stories you would know that the shooter stopped because he ran out of bullets, and not because some other kids were pointing guns at him. In fact he was so unfazed that he punched some one while those kids were pointing guns at him. In the end he had to be tackled. So there you have it. And i repeat dont listen to rush he lies to you.
to prove that the world's forests are increasing.
Do you see the problem in that?
So, if we ADD energy to the system (sun) and INCREASE the rotation of the fluid parts of our planet (air) we slow things down....
Somehow I don't think so. They seem to be treating this as a closed system with the air borrowing energy from the earth. The reverse is true!
But it doesnt mean it wont react relatively predictably to a relatively large input.
And all this carbon dioxide we are sending up is a pretty large input.
Apparently all the prominent scientists in the world including most of the alive noble laureates in the physical sciences are in some kind of a conspiracy to create meadia and political hype.
While yes, most claims over global warming and the like are vastly exaggerated, some of what you say is not strictly correct.
1. Not sure. One thing I do know in the time I have spent doing atmospheric physics is that people are smarter than that. Temperature data is FAR FAR FAR more than a few thermometers in cities
2. There is an experiment called ATOC which has been doing just that for several decades. While this mightnt yet be long enough, the trend seen so far is for warming.
3. This is no longer correct. The satellite data to which you refer has more recently been analysed, and shows a warming effect. I believe the effect that was ignored was the spiralling in of the satellites over time, but im not sure.
4. Eh? millions of years? and you can see a cause and effect? What's more, your next point contradicts this one. CO2 and water are known greenhouse gasses. Even mars is warmed by a few degrees by its atmosphere.
5. Yes, there is a known dampening effect on greenhouse gasses. The other one is the warmer it is, the faster C02 dissolves in the ocean, leaching out as rock.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
That's one small step for man...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The world has stopped, people live in endless sunshine. But the endless sun causes infertility etc, so one person from the twilight area goes into the dark side to find this mad scientist and get him to turn the world.
In the end the scientist does turn the world, by 180 degrees and stops.
The moral is: when talking with scientists, be precise.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Global warming sucks for many reasons (the warming part being the major one :->) but I think we have nothing to worry about from this effect.
:-)
Okay, time for some (EXTREMELY) rough figurin':
The Earch is 6,378,136 meters in radius (equitorial radius... ja, ja, it's something like 10 or 20 km less from pole to pole, but bear with me.)
On a perfectly clear day, with the sun directly overhead, insolation dumps about 1000 W/m^2 on the earth.
Given these two facts (someone please check my math/logic):
Surface area of the earth is approx 1.278E14 m^2
Given that half of the planet is illuminated at any time, and assuming (enter truly massive error margin) for the sake of argument that the entire half is recieving full insolation, that means that the total energy striking the earth over 24 hours is:
5.52E21 Watts.
(Damn!)
So, if the day is 1/10,000 of a second longer, we take on an additional 6.39E12 Watts.
(Damn again!)
However, looking at it from percentages:
6.39E12/5.52E21 = 1.15E-9 or about 1.2E-7 of one percent.
I think we can safely say this will not cause a noticible positive feedback for some time
They'll love this. Soon they'll be build up enough time to fit in another car commercial. :-)
I, for one, think the policy of dependance on foreign oil is a good thing. One day, oil will run low. Would you rather be asking for foreign oil now, or in 30~50 years? It may seem harsh, but at that time, we can tell OPEC to kiss our asses and leave the Middle East to the religous zealots.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p403.htm
IS INDEXED BY STATE. Isn't this a big enough hint ? So the UN, EU, Japan and every other nation on planet earth says that Global Warming Exists.
But the worlds largest polluter says that it doesn't.
Hint: Slobodan Milosevic says he is innocent too.....
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
OK - no more anecdotes. Here are some factsa sa News/2002/200201317366.html
s s= your%20say&subclass=general&category=columnists%20 analysis&story_id=22575
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/N
Tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and "greenhouse scientists" are at a loss as to why.
Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, and more clouds. (John Daly's words) Yet - there are less clouds, aren't there?
1)
You may put weight where you like. The problem is, that most of the advertised work of many of these scientists is only the doom and gloom stuff. Which is why during the 1970s and 1980s, many of these scientific climatic organisations (especially American ones) are on the record as warning that the earth was about to go into another ice age.
To think that all the scientists are in agreement is absolutely untrue, though that may be the impression you get from the media. That "the world is going to be ok" doesn't really make headlines.
Try this for size
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?cla
Just another sceptics point of view. What's accepted for fact is often extremely doubtful.
Perhaps it's me, but it seems the only people that are objecting to the science are the ones whose incomes don't depend on it.
2)
Yes, there have been some deep sea buoys measuring temperature. But they're not included in the overall pattern that is presented when climate change is looked at, as is the case with the hundreds of weather stations around the world - because they're not surface temperatures. Just like temperatures from under the earths surface are not taken.
There are only two readings across time in this deep sea experiment - one in the 1950s, and one more recently. The problem with that, as any grade 10 student could tell you - what happens if either of those two years were anomalous? What happens if 195x was really cold, and 200x was really hot?
And who's to say that the reading from the 1950s was at all accurate anyway? The temperature was taken between 700 and 1100 metres down!
Regardless - back to the point, this is research done in isolation from general climate research, the statistics do not go towards station records that collect climate figures.
3)
My mistake, not NASA, NOAA. Getting my Govt agencies mixed up
Try these links, they're from Daly's page, if you doubt their authenticity I suggest you contact him
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/nasa.gif
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/nasa-ann.gif
I'd certainly like to see some of your links to suggest that satellite data has been re-examined. I never heard anything about it. Regardless, I wonder who/how re-examined it to prove it's suddenly got warmer. I'm skeptical.
4)
I don't have the link to hand, I can only promise you I read it somewhere authorative. I will see if I can dig it out, and if I can I will post it. Daly himself may know - perhaps email him?
5)
Yet all the models are revised year after year. Some up, some down. And remember, most weather bureaus can't accurately forecast a few days in advance. Let alone years.
-- james
A bit more on the urban heat island
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/urban/
It does exist, and you'd be amazed at how many weather stations are established in major cities.
-- james
No, that would be cooling the Earth...
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
So will the planet come to a complete stop, or would it start to rotate in reverse?
The global warming is going to develop into a snowball effect anyway and it's too late to stop that.
There's lot of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses bound in various things, like fossil fuels, the vegetation, everything humans have built of wood, under arctic permafrost, in the bottoms of the oceans... When temperatures go up even a little, these bound gasses start being released more, increasing temperature, thus increasing their release... The processes that consume these gasses can't keep up. Snowball effect. Game over man.
And don't forget that sun is getting hotter slowly but steadily, it's now quite a bit hotter than when Earth was formed, and it's life that has been keeping Earth habitable and biosphere balanced. If this life takes too much damage, balance is broken and there won't be a 2nd chance for Earth...
Well, I suppose we have in our power to create a nuclear winter, so maybe technology can save us... But it won't be a very pleasant world for a while after that. I just hope I won't be living to see that.
Can you see where global warming is leading, soon the world will be run by ice cream cartels...
Come on people. Relax.
Fact 1: The average world temperature is rising. So, yes, there is a global warming.
Fact 2: This happened a lot of times in the past (talking of million years) without human interaction (same for cooling down). Humans might make it faster, slower or have no great effect. There is no prove yet.
Fact 3: There are abundant theories about how this makes the world hotter and counter-theories about how this will make the world cooler (keyword: iceage).
Fact 4: Nobody knows. Everybody just has theories based on very little data compared to the complex working of world climate.
And "global warming is slowing down earth rotation" is complete bullcrap IMHO. How do you want to prove that with this little data (we all know the world is slowing down anyway).
I read an article in the New Yorker recently that discussed the Greenland Ice Core project. It mentioned that global climates are cyclical and during one decade the average temperature changed something like 15 degrees F -- in one decade. According to the sources quoted (I read this over about a month ago), the global weather patterns change dramatically every 10,000 years or so (I think my memory is accurate, but it might not be) and we're near that 10,000 year mark. This gives a different view of "global warming."
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
any sattelite orbiting at an altitude of 1Km would be a wild fireball that would either last 3 seconds and then cease to exist or cause thousands of UFO sightings and cause accidents with aircraft.
I have been above 1Km at least 60 times in my life (a private aircraft, single prop without a pressurized cabin can get to 2km easily. and I can positively say that there are NO sattelites at that altitude...
Oh and weather balloons, hang aroud 30-50Km high.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
umm, re-read the post. The satellite has been measuring the temperature of one of the atomospheres (there are multiple, I forget all their names, but stratosphere would be an example). The atmosphere that I am referring to is about 1km up. Not the satellite ;)
-- james
Now that is one comment that deserves +5. Unlike most of the rants here you seem to have taken your time to get some facts straight.
*laugh*
That will teach me to do a quick link search! (Although to be fair, I haven't really researched your claims either). I don't doubt that there are are people in the "global-warming-is-bunk" camp that have political agendas; for that matter many people in the "humans cause-global warming camp" have a pretty clear political agenda too. In my defense, please note the times on my varrious posts over the past few weeks (and frequent refferences to coffee); we've got a new son, & I've been hopping on while rocking him between diaper changes,, etc. at pretty much random times (read: not enough sleep).
So I will back down to a few statements I know first hand to be correct, and not try to back anything with potentially tainted links:
Better?-- MarkusQ
he quoted it... the way you wrote the sentence clearly states that the sattelite is 1km up.
it was your syntaxical error that caused the confusion.
I thought "oceanic crust preserved in the southern Tibetan plateau" and Antarctica previously being nearer the equator and moving south was due to plate tectonics; but what do I know - I'm a wacko who thinks destroying our only habitat for short term financial gain is insane, and that 7th generational thinking is a good thing...
I watched a big report on the slowing of the earth and the moon...
Sorry no links to back this up, but hear me out...
The moon is what causes our rise and fall (wax and wain) of the tides. This same effect is acting as a big break on the earths spinning.
In a sense, the earth is slowing down at a miniscule faction of a second a day.
In recongnizable terms, it said that the earth will be 26 hours a day in 20 million years and 28 in 40 or 50 million years.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Yes, of course. That's generally what happens as you leave an ice age.
Few scientists would disagree (myself included) that the average temperature of the earth is increasing, but it is in the milliKelvin/decade range and is not the explanation for the warm winter this year. Sorry, but those are the facts.
To say that humans are the cause of this has not been proven (and begs the question). Rather, the data suggest that we are *precisely* in line with a cycle of ice ages that has been going on for billions of years. Such data comes from examining strata in core samples taken from the ocean floor at various places around the world.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts...
-Mike-
"Twenty-five signatures turns the most frightful stupidity into an opinion" -Kirkegaard
What if the rate of deceleration is increasing? Then we're screwed in...alright, still probably nothing to get too excited about... I wonder if dinosaurs had shorter days, say 23.99999 hour days?
But the truth of the matter is, the vast, VAST majority of the world's scientists overwhelmingly agree that Global Warming is very real and poses a significant threat to our ecosystem and our way of life.
The "vast, VAST majority" of the world's scientists apparently were pretty upset that somebody was speaking for them, which is probably a reason that a rather large number of them signed this petition. I suppose the thousands of PhD's listed there all work for oil companies?
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
It's like facts are against what slashdot stands for...
I mean come on, creation of the matrix, 2025... the orgazmitron?
I don't really see these happening.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
http://sidsnet.org/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article&gr oup=sidsnet.climate.newswire&item=547
As with most things these days, its possible the global warming debate will wind up in the courts.
*sigh*
(my 2p - regardless of whether chopping down forests warms the world or not, it is probably a major reason for the current extinction rate estimated at being 40 times the the normal background rate (40 times is one of the more conservative estimates - some estimates range up to 1000 times))
Ok,
Even if your arguments are valid one thing to remember is that even if the pollution is not having an effect on global warming, it sure as the hell is on humans - think asthma rates in L.A and other smog zones.
Also think on how long term pollution is effecting the enviroment (think acid rain and polluted ground water). Now I ask, even if your argument against global warming is valid, is there still no reason to cut back on the amount of pollution we throw up into the air everyday?
The best way to win an argument is to debate on both sides.
Who are we to say cesium is the correct standard for time? How do we know time is, for lack of a better word, absolute.
What if "time", and the distance between a second wasn't absolute? What if it all was actually a variable of many different things?
What if the time continuum hinged on many different factors, thus propelling us into a continually confusing time period?
Who's to say we're right, and who's to say we're wrong.
A.D. 2001: World slows and starts warming.
A.D. 2050: World is now going so slow its orbit is reversed.
A.D. 2040: World is going backwards in time now because of the reveresal. Time from now on will repeat the past.
A.D. 2030: Repeat of A.D. 2030.
Etc.,etc. After this the World gets real boring, nothing but a cycle of reruns!
A.D./B.C.???(Date Unkown) God after the torture of watching nothing but reruns of the World writes an 11th Commandment, and then kills himself.
11th Commandment
I know my son Commienst has trolled much in the past, and that this post is redundant, but he has decided to repost it now that it is rendered more hilarious and ontopic. His karma as of 2/18/01 at 4:55 AM is -4, it is my last commandment that he be rectituded, before my death. Mod this up, ye faithful, IT IS MY FINAL COMMANDMENT.
I did not add much, but you should mod the thread up, so new people can see the better version, instead of reading the one you originally read.
By the way, I have the post saved on my hd, but not the whole thread. Here is what I did not paste:
"HISTORY OF THE WORLD (Score:5, Funny)
by Yu Suzuki (dural@doramail.com) on Tuesday May 23, @09:27PM CDT"
Yu Suzuki, is the guy who made Shenmue. He is really fucking funny if you read through his posts, you can tell it was him who wrote it. Jraxis just fucking pasted it. I do not know why you think he wrote the original. Jraxis is remarkably unfunny.
I cannot find the original thread, slashdot has such a shitty search. If you read Yu'sother posts you can surmise that he wrote it, originally.
I am into the copy and paste.
"Global Warming" is a sham to scare the general population into funding grants to scientists to study the environment.
Yeah, Rush is a "liar", so I guess that those ELF freaks didn't really cause all that damage. I guess that guy didn't really plead the fifth. Funny, though, how I watched him do it on TV.
The arrogant hypocrisy is astounding, to say the least. These ELF people claim to be so righteous when it comes to the environment, but what do they do? Pollute! That's right-just what the hell do you think burning a large ski resort to the ground produces? Lots and lots and lots of smoke, which goes in the air and contributes to pollution. But, I guess it's okay, since after all, they're just "thinking globally and acting locally". What a friggin' crock.
But, of course, it's all because Rush is a liar, right? Give me a break. And upsize it, please.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
microsecond: The period of time that elapses between the event of a leftist performing the "global warming" routine and another leftist performing the "blame Bush" (or some other non-leftist) routine.
<yawn>
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
there was an article on slashdot last year that stated the earths rotational speed was increasing because of the dams we've built that change the center of gravity of the earth. so maybe things will balence out :)
or maybe we worry too much...
I knew the 1920 response was familiar. That's a dittohead response to deforestation, both picking a low point in forestation and "[ignoring] the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems".
And that is deforestation. A homogenous set of trees is not the same as a forest.
-no broken link
This isn't informative or insightful, this is just scary. And the really fucking frightening thing is that I don't think you are a troll, but positively believe every word you posted.
The fact that you've been brainwashed is no excuse, we'll have to defend ourselves against the likes of you. But since you ignore and twist the facts this hardcore, kick and scream, words might not suffice. This isn't a personal threat, but merely a general observation about society.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My point was that often things which seem absurd turn out to be true (or at least potentially closer to the truth). There was a time that Newton's gravity model was considered to be the unquestionable truth. Now we are not so sure. There was also a point when it was the unquestionable truth that matter could not travel between point A and point B without passing through a contiguous line of points in between. Now, thanks to quantum mechanics and tunneling, we are not so sure. If we reject something as being absurd because it is inconsistent with things that we "know" to be true, we are favoring our assumptions over the evidence.
Each time we think that we have "proven" the "truth" about something, our certainty should be a warning to us that we are making assumptions which will probably eventually turn out to be invalid. If we think that we may have a model which more accurately represents our observations then we will have a better chance of breaking our minds out of that model when a new, more accurate one comes along.
Science as a field of discovery is a bit different than science for real-world applications. The applied scientist favors the simple, less accurate model because it is easier to use and gives the same result in a real-world situation ("it don't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows"). The research scientist who is seeking the ultimate truth favors a process of constantly updating, refining, and maybe completely redesigning the model in order to account for every bit of observable evidence, no matter how minor its effect on the result.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
It amazes me how scientists forget relativity so easily and quickly. this supposed slowing of the planetary rotation is in relation to what?
Although I doubt that we could measure such a slight change in speed, I would remind you that rotation is not relative. For one thing, objects at the surface must accelerate inward at the rate of (IIRC) r*v^2, where v is the angular velocity in radians/unit time and r is the radius of the planet, and acceleration cannot be relative because it implies force, which we call centrifugal force.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I think that by definition, plant CO2 intake from living plants should roughly equal the CO2 emitted from decomposing plant material (ignoring any gain or reduction in the quantity of living plant matter now vs. the quantity of living plant matter which existed when the plants which are decomposing now were still alive), so both statements may be accurate.
This is the idea behind biomass. When you burn biomass (assuming the biomass was grown in one season) you release no more CO2 into the air than was consumed by said biomass in the previous growing season.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
While the evidence is not all there, and not all of the complex processes involved are understood, I think it makes sense to follow whichever practice seems to have the lesser impact on our environment. In other words, regardless of the correctness of their assumptions, the environmentalists are pursuing a "least-bad" approach - it is not likely that following environmentally careful practices will cause some great harm.
There's just no good argument against the "what if" of trying to find better ways to do things in the face of the *possibility* of a problem this difficult to handle.
Basically, even if "on-the-galactic-scale-humans-are-insignificant", on the human scale we're *very* significant, and that scale includes our environment, which includes a lot of other systems. We don't understand them fully. We won't for a while, at least. We need to keep working on it, and it seems wise to *avoid jumping to conclusions*, no matter which side those conclusions are on. If we maintain a healthy skepticism, then we should be able to maintain a cautious interaction with our ecology / resources.
Whatever you do, don't judge the rationality of a way of thinking on the basis of a bunch of irrational slogan-slingers... in any debate.
[|]
I don't troll. Never have.
... uncomfortable. Probably because deep down they realize that they are partly to blame. It's sort of a guilt thing or something. Not sure.
You make a good point. Scary stuff does sell. I stand corrected.
Now that I think about it more, I think news about global warming makes people
But I sure as hell know from my own experiences that people sure don't like hearing about it, regardless of the reason. So it's no wonder the major news networks avoid talking about it.
He also gave us sin and the ability to choose not to do it. Do you choose to sin? Do you choose to waste and pollute?
Just because your senses and intellect do not grasp something does not mean it does not exist. We hire experts all the time to analyze and understand matters that we do not have the background or time to understand ourselves: Lawyers, doctors, auto mechanics, investment advisors, clergy, etc. It is generally considered foolish to disagree with these experts unless you are an expert yourself. Why do you hold scientists in lower regard than these other experts? If anything, you should respect the word of scientists more than these others -- because, of the list I mentioned, scientists are the only ones who are not trying to directly extract money from you.
I find it hard to believe that you studied botany.
The fact that you disagree with me isn't a very good basis on which to doubt my statement that I studied botany. I may, for example, have had rotten teachers, or it may have been a long time ago, or I may have been an awful student. Or, for that matter you might be wrong. As it turns out, I was a botany major for three years, it was a long time ago, and I'm probably not an impartial judge on the other questions.
If CO2 were a limiting factor, it would be in short demand, but it's in great excess...is very readily available at the elevations in the atmosphere where it's required.
I suspect you mean "great demand" or "short supply" (instead of "short demand"). CO2 is not abundant. It makes up less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere (Argon, for comparison, is 25 times as common, but you don't hear people talking about Argon as particularly abundant).
N and P on the other hand, are in demand, and usually not in great surplus.
IIRC, this is quite true in areas with exceptionally high water flow (e.g. rain forests, the open sea), since fixed Nitrogen & Phosphorous are generally very soluble, and thus wash away. But most plant growth occurs outside these areas (this is why people are so concerned about the rain forests; they grow very slowly and will take a long time to recover).
Plant matter (dried) is about 45-50% carbon & 40% oxygen by mass. Less than 0.5% is nitrogen & phosphorous (combined). Plants are mostly starch / sugar / cellulose--in short, carbohydrates--and very little protein (which is where the N & P go). So the C/(N+P)ratio in plants is on the order of 100 to 1.
If you look at the volume of space surrounding a plant (say, half air, half soil) you will see fixed nitrogen in the soil between 10 & 50 ppm. Given dirt's specific gravity is around 2.5, and air's is around 0.00127, and therefore dirt is pretty close to 2000 times as dense as air, and carbon is just a little lighter than oxygen, we find an environmental ratio of about: (0.03%/3) to (2000*50/1000000) or 10^-5 to 1.
Thus, from a plants point of view (comparing abundance inside the plant to outside the plant) nitrogen and phosphorous are about 10^7 times as abundant as carbon.
The idea that CO2 is a limiting factor for most ecosystems is laughable.
*smile* You say that, but I'll bet you wouldn't cough up a "+1 Funny" if you had mod points, would you?
-- MarkusQ
It actually doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not; and it doesn't matter whether we're causing it or not. I totally agree. If it is real, then the potential costs are so high (most major cities, for example, grew up around ports and are only a few metres above sea level), and the time it takes to turn the juggernaut around is so long, that we need to be taking urgent avoiding action now while we continue to urgently assess the reality of the risk. No we don't. Structures require what is known as maintenance. Sometimes they are even scrapped due to age. The "global warming", if it is in fact happening, is happening so slowly that normal maintenance and abandonment will take care of it. If it turns out that global warming is happening but that the major causes are natural, then we're still better off if we've done everything we can to stop making things worse. No, we aren't. In that case it's been a monumental waste of effort. Do you comprehend the amount of effort it would take to decrease CO2 levels to any appreciable extent? If it turns out that global warming isn't happening and it was all a panic about nithing, then we'll still have more efficient transportation, better insulated houses, and a cleaner planet with greater fossil fuel reserves to pass on to our children. Is that all there is to giving them a quality life? But if the United States carries on the way it's going and it turns out that that global warming is real, then the voters of Florida, Mississippi, and Texas aren't going to cheer too loudly for the President and the generation which lost 20% of the land area of the continental United States, and turned another 20% into desert. You don't KNOW that's what will happen. Hell, if that much land mass is underwater, then there will be that much more evaporation. Why will there be more desert? There might be less! The whole point is that you advocate chasing our tails when you have not a clue what the result will be. We can much more easily extrapolate what will happen if, say, Kyoto is implemented, simply because the results would be so much nearer in the future.
no, it's just me trying to show off my extraordinary vocabulary. The article was talking about fluid motion dissipating angular momentum.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Extraordinary it is... I like to think I have an above-average vocabulary, but even I had to look it up;)
How limited a mind you must have, to think there is only one place to get information that disagrees with your opinions.
I caught one Rush show, a long time ago, and realized he was no different than any other person who believes in big powerful government. Just like you.
Oh, his ends are different, but his means of using force to make others act as he sees fit is no less reprehensible.
I am not liberal or conservative. It is you who cannot imagine a world beyond your own views.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Your comments on global warming being false are correct. But your conclusion is just as dumb as the whole Global Warming scam. Old growth forests actually use up oxygen as the trees decay, and ferment. Younger trees are just better for oxygen out-put. Maybe we should put that money into something useful.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Sorry but the chances are that is exactly what it is. The term 'global warming' is perhaps a bit unfortunate, because people tend to assume that this translates simply into 'local warming.' It would perhaps be better to think of the situation as a 'higher-energy climate.'
How this manifests at a local level is cannot accurately be predicted. It might result in local increases of temperature, but lower local temperatures do not contradict the findings of global warming. Then again, it might result in greater extremes.
In 1991, I was visiting a number of atmospheric scientists at the CSIRO's Climate Research Centre in Mordialoc (sp?? I'm not from Victoria). They made the point back then, that rather than looking for higher temperatures, we might instead observe an increase in the frequency and intensity of 'extreme weather events' as the first effects of global warming. This had been the most noticable (and reproducable) finding of their computer model studies. Certainly the intervening decade (and especially the latter part thereof), have done little to put my mind at rest with regard to extreme weather events.
Now I am highly skeptical of climatic computer models, chaos being what it is (and array processors being what they are). As I said I don't think the effects can be accurately predicted. However, you cannot discount the idea that global warming is manifested as an increased frequency and intesity of extereme weather events (or "global warming makes the extremes greater" as you so quaintly put it), with the simple statement "that's not global warming." Too much intelligent effort, too much (expensive) computer time, has been devoted to discover that global warming is precisely that. It might wrong, of course, but you'll have to do better than merely stating that it is.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
And what does the temperature in Buffalo have to do with global warming?!
A significant fraction of the slowdown is
/., burying us alive.
due to dams, which keep megatons of water
far above sea level. I remember reading
somewhere that this is the single largest
human-instigated cause of the rotational
slowdown. Some dams are for power, some
for irrigation or to provide a reserve during
a dry season.
Since the highest elevation in Florida is
a landfill, perhaps that is a sign that solid
waste may soon surpass water as the single
largest human-induced factor. Or perhaps
the Fed will use Carnivore to print out
all the bunk from
"Ayieeeee, said Legolam."
Here are some factsa sa News/2002/200201317366.html
s s= your%20say&subclass=general&category=columnists%20 analysis&story_id=22575
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/N
Tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and "greenhouse scientists" are at a loss as to why.
Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, and more clouds. (John Daly's words) Yet - there are less clouds, aren't there?
This is a straw man view of the scientific picture. Cloud formation is far more complicated than simple heating effects. Particles, air density etc play a massive role.
You may put weight where you like. The problem is, that most of the advertised work of many of these scientists is only the doom and gloom stuff. Which is why during the 1970s and 1980s, many of these scientific climatic organisations (especially American ones) are on the record as warning that the earth was about to go into another ice age.
Given that the "scientists" that I published are in fact scientific bodies (all of which are much much bigger than simply climatical science, I would be very surprised if they required "doom and gloom stuff".
The predicted ice ages, is also a piece of anti-science propaganda. See http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/iceage/ for details.
To think that all the scientists are in agreement is absolutely untrue, though that may be the impression you get from the media. That "the world is going to be ok" doesn't really make headlines.
Given the uncritical reviews of Bjørn Lomborg recently in the Australian media, I find this hard to believe.
Try this for size
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?cla
This opinion piece by Larry Mounser, a self-proclaimed geophysicist (I did a search through the scientific lit. to see if he had published anything on the climate - all that I found that he hasn't published anything in the scientific lit. full stop), relies on the usually very weak argument (Antarctic ice etc), and is in direct conflict with positions adopted by scientific societies such as the American Geophysical Union.
Perhaps it's me, but it seems the only people that are objecting to the science are the ones whose incomes don't depend on it.
It's just you. I was taught about climate change by two different science departments, the lecturers involved derived none of their income from global warming.
There are only two readings across time in this deep sea experiment - one in the 1950s, and one more recently. The problem with that, as any grade 10 student could tell you - what happens if either of those two years were anomalous? What happens if 195x was really cold, and 200x was really hot?
Perhaps you should read the article itself rather than relying on the website of a pseudoscientist. The data collection was started in the 1930's. It wasn't until the 1950's that the average temperatures started to rise. Ten's of thousands of data points were collected.
And who's to say that the reading from the 1950s was at all accurate anyway? The temperature was taken between 700 and 1100 metres down!
The early data collection apparatus was tested against the modern data collection apparatus, and it was found that they gave statistically identical results. Once again, read the paper, not the pseudoscience.
I'd certainly like to see some of your links to suggest that satellite data has been re-examined. I never heard anything about it. Regardless, I wonder who/how re-examined it to prove it's suddenly got warmer. I'm skeptical.
I don't have a internet link. However, as a Canberra person, you can't be that far from ANU or UC, either of which should have the science journal Nature in their library. Check out Nature, vol 394, pages 615-616 (August 13, 1998). It's by Dian Gaffen, who is a NOAA scientist.
Sorry for being abrasive in this post, but you sound (or should it be read) like a smart person who has been taken in by some frauds peddling pesudoscience.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
A bit more on the urban heat island
t m)
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/urban/
It does exist, and you'd be amazed at how many weather stations are established in major cities.
I don't deny that it exists, nor whether or not it is studied, but rather whether it has been included in the montering of global tempertures.
According to CSIRO it has been. (http://www.dar.csiro.au/info/material/info98_3.h
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Yes but some of these experts can be clouded in their own opinion before analizing something. I believe anyone can have an opinion. Even someone who is not a so-called expert. Just because your an expert on global warming does not mean you can't have a valid opinon against it. For chrissakes Al Gore wrote a book on this! Is Al Gore a so-called expert? I don't think so. He's just a politico like most Global Warming experts (scientist or not) are. Politico's pushing for more laws...more laws we don't need.
Edmond, if you had actually read my post, you would have noticed that I do not listen to Limbagh. Thus your repeated protestations about my having learned of this from him are falicious on their face.
If you had spend the time providing any actual data to demonstrate the foundation of your knowledge, rather than merely making a fool of yourself, you wouldn't have to be concerned with being modded down.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Actually, the origin of carbon monoxide (and hence carbon dioxide) don't make me skeptical of global warming (the sketchy data does it for me)..
No, the fact that the vast majority of CO2 emissions over an entire YEAR seem to be coming from largely unpopulated regions in South America and Africa makes me skeptical of politicians who try to tell me that my '94 Chevrolet is responsible for the 0.5 degree Fahrenheit rise in the temperature in some place in Siberia.
I don't doubt that the average surface temperature in that town in Siberia may well have risen 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 20 years. But blaming the US and other industrialized nations for it without proper evidence is stupid and counterproductive. Not to mention the fact that it could cost billions of dollars in the US alone if tight CO2 restrictions were ever enforced, when these restrictions are likely completely unnecessary!
Nasa's description of that particular CO measurement states that it was taken over the course of an entire year. That seems to me to suggest that forest fires are consistently dominating the CO (and CO2) production around the globe.
Forest fires occur naturally all over the world. Lightning strikes are the primary culprit. The reason that recent forest fires have been so destructive is that our firefighters have done such a GOOD job over the past half a century that forest coverage is at something like a 90 year high in the United States (I don't have time to find the reference to that statistic, but it's been quoted elsewhere).
When the fires DO get out of control, they burn and burn and burn. I hate to say it, but our attempts to SAVE FORESTS might actually be creating these huge fires that produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide... Scary...
As for the Ozone vs. Global Warming issue, the fundamental mechanism by which global warming supposedly works traps ANY form of latent energy from the sun, but infrared radiation in particular. If you remember, the biggest band of radiation blocked by the Ozone layer was the ultraviolet band. But the UV rays that are blocked still dissipate energy into the surrounding environment (in the form of infrared, I believe), even if the ozone layer were completely intact. In other words, according to the theory at least, Global Warming should occur regardless of the presence of an ozone layer.
that's ok, I've wrote that post having just got out of a talk by a geologists talking about fluid motion on primordial Mars. He used the word Fluvial like crazy.
:)
And yes, I asked him what he meant by fluvial
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Your basing your skeptism on a misconception.
Carbon monoxide production isn't directly related to carbon dioxide production. Carbon monoxide is produced when carbon is combusted with a limited amount of oxygen (such as the middle of trees), carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is produced when their is plenty of oxygen (such as most modern industrial processes).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
I agree. But I'm not sure how much damage CO2 is responsible for, it's all the other crap that is put out. Interestingly, for all the criticism of Bush over his CO2 plans, he's put in enforceable targets to reduce mercury and NO2 (I think). Good for him
-- james
I would argue the exact same about you, simply from a different perspective, anonymous coward. Instead of understanding, you just accept every word written by some lackey who's funding depends upon keeping the media hyped up. Take a look at the post regards the Discovery Channel below. Twice as many scientists believe the science is sleight of hand. And you accuse me of being brainwashed.
-- james
NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet)
ok, dimwit, re-read. NASA satellites (note plural)... temperature of ONE of the atmospheres (note singular)... I forget IT'S name (note, singular). If I had said "forget THEIR name", then the criticism might be valid.
-- james
"I believe anyone can have an opinion. Even someone who is not a so-called expert."
Sure. However, I will continue to hold my opinion that anyone who disregards the word of an expert in any area still does so at their own peril. Dismissing evidence because it disagrees with your preconceived notion (or opinion, if you prefer) is nonscientific at best, and probably quite foolish. Dismissing the word of someone who has collected and studied the evidence, when you have not, even if you suspect them of bias, is likewise almost certainly foolish. If you want to stand in opposition to the word of someone who is expert at what they do, it certainly behooves you to have a good reason for it. You can't do that without developing expertise of your own.
I agree with you, forest fires are getting worse. I've heard this may be due to firefighters preventing natural forest fires that trees get so dense that they now tend to spread faster.
Also, my biology teacher once said that 'ma nature' does a better job taking care of herself than we can ever do.