Slashdot Mirror
TV Coverage of Cycling Races Can Help Document the Effects of Climate Change (phys.org)
Researchers from Ghent University were able to detect climate change impacts on trees in Belgium by analyzing nearly four decades of archive footage from the Tour of Flanders. The findings were published in the journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Phys.Org reports: Focusing on trees and shrubs growing around recognizable climbs and other 'landmarks' along the route of this major annual road cycling race in Belgium, the team looked at video footage from 1981 to 2016 obtained by Flemish broadcaster VRT. They visually estimated how many leaves and flowers were present on the day of the course (usually in early April) and linked their scores to climate data. The ecologists found that the trees had advanced the timing of leafing and flowering in response to recent temperature changes. Before 1990, almost no trees had grown leaves at the time of the spring race. After that year, more and more trees visible in the television footage -- in particular magnolia, hawthorn, hornbeam and birch trees -- were already in full leaf. These shifts were most strongly related to warmer average temperatures in the area, which have increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since 1980.
The problem is that the data doesn't match the models, and it's those models that say it is supposed to be 2 deg C warmer. The data doesn't support the models' claims. Science says that when data and theory/model conflict, the theory/model is wrong.
Additionally, the theory is that a warming world should have more and stronger hurricanes, yet the trendline since 1992 is down and this year is forecast to be lower still. More data and theory conflicting...
Furthermore, look at the GISS temperature record from 1988 and from 2018. You'll see that it's been adjusted to eliminate the peak in 1940, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. When you can adjust away the past, then you can dictate the present. But it's not quite honest now, is it?
Lastly, look at HadCRUT4 from 1895 to 1943, and then again from 1957 to 2005. They are essentially the same - yet the former (1895 to 1943) is supposed to be not affected by the sudden rise in CO2. If we had the same type of climate change with and without the impact of CO2, then what does that say about the impact of CO2?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Greenpeace is working against CO2 and pro solar and pro wind since they are founded, moron.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Greenpeace favour 100% renewable energy: https://www.greenpeace.org/arc...
Nuclear is too expensive, has too many problems and doesn't even cut CO2 emissions that much. The economics are steadily getting worse and the timescales involved in building it make any investment extremely risky and uncertain.
Climate change is the fault of stupid, short-sighted fanboys like you who are stuck on nuclear instead of renewables.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC