If you look at the temperature map produced, it shows the vast majority of Australia as being 1-2 degrees Celsius above the base line.
Doing some basic research by going to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, their report says overall Australia was only 0.21 degrees above the base line...that's a pretty significant difference!
I'm probably going to modded into oblivion, but I'm sorry I simply don't buy what this article by the World Bank is selling
Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher. So there's likely a negative feedback effect that has been left undocumented by most models, and this should be concerning many people in the climate science game.
Honestly, this articles smacks of an attempt by the World Bank to scare people into getting on board an ETS - from which they will directly benefit in a financial manner. I really wish that anyone outside of the sphere of science would stop making unfounded claims to push their own agendas.
Furthermore drought in Russia, Europe, and Australia means they aren't having bumper crops to offset that loss.
.
I can't speak for Russia or Europe, but Australia is definitely not in a drought and hasn't been for at least the last 2 years. In fact at the moment we are in the middle of a La Nina event, with more flooding than anything else. Most of our dams are either at 100% capacity, or close to that as well - they'd in fact all be at 100% if it wasn't for "environmental flows".
There's an easy way that they could cajole most people into being tracked, and that's to give them "points" which they can spend on good & services depending on the time spent in the shopping centre, etc. That way, both parties get what they want and Big Brother is happy again as Joe Consumer continues on in blissful ignorance.
I wasn't meaning to imply that all of New Orleans was flooded or built below sea level. I just get annoyed at people who make ridiculous claims like the AC I was originally responding. Thank you for the correction BTW.
Wow, you are misinformed a great deal.
Firstly, the water wasn't 100m (300ft) high even in New Orleans.
Secondly, New Orleans sits below the water level, which is why they have levees in the first place.
They built New Orleans knowing full well that this is a likely scenario, and all it took was a big enough storm to cause this.
Then when the engineers say it's too late to do anything except build a 300 foot tall dam around every coastline in the world, it'll be their fault for not fixing it.
Let me answer some of the angry points you made, ok?
And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.
Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.
Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.
There's hardly anything unknown to fear here. The risks are entirely known, although granted, it is possible that there may be some unexpected issues that crop up when we finally do get to mars that the boffins on Earth hadn't foreseen.
And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years.
Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?
Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.
WTF? Now you're just ranting off at a tangent. How about, personally I am just tired of people responding to a post in a knee-jerk manner and making all sorts of assumptions based on zero factual evidence.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.'
Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
Then you find the nearest Starfleet Academy shuttle bay, steal a shuttle, and head for the sun. Hmm... something's wrong with that plan, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Simple. You need a metaphasic shield installed first.
I could have sworn you said a "Metaphysical" shield...
Sigh, my brain hurts
believe we should be messing with the natural occurances of the solar system. Asteroid collisions are how we got here, how we will end, and how a new smarter, more capable species will come again.
Let it happen naturally. End of story.
Tell you what, next time you get critically ill or injured, we should just let you die a natural death so that a new smarter and more capable person can take your place.
I say let it happen naturally, End of story.
"I used to think of Australia as one of the freest nations in the world (in some respects, even more free than the U.S. itself). What the hell happened???"
Who took away our firearms? Who set up concentration camps in the desert?
And as I recall Internet filtering was raised by Senator Alston to get Senator Harradine onside when he controlled the balance of power. Harradine wanted porn and online gambling filtered. This was back in the mid 90s when JWH was in his 1st term as PM.
Whilst I agree that there was an over-reaction to firearm control by the previous government, the rest of your points are not quite as clear headed.
You can call them concentration camps, but how about we call them detention camps for illegal immigrants. What would you have the Australian government do with these people? Ship them back or just let them out into the general populace. Interestingly with the hard line approach the Liberal government took, there were far fewer illegal immigrants arriving on Australian shores than ever before. And please, don't try to call them refugees, we all know that the vast majority of the people arriving in Australia illegally are simply illegal immigrants trying to jump queues or get into the country in any way they can, including paying someone a bucket load of money to smuggle them in on a leaky fishing boat.
As for the previous government raising internet filtering to gain the support of a certain senator...was it implemented? No? Wow...but this government actually is planning on implementing it and silencing any dissenting voices amongst the general populace in the process.
John Winston Howard happened. It'll take a while for sanity to prevail.
Are you completely out of your skull?
This entire initiative of filtering the internet is a LABOR initiative and has had nothing to do with the Libs.
In fact, there has been more censoring, bullying and downright jack-booting going on since the Labor party won the election than throughout the entire 12 years that the Libs were in office.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about anyone else, but doesn't the list of countries in the summary total seven?
Yes, because slavery definitely doesn't exist in Star Trek...there's definitely no Orion Syndicate or Orion Slavers or slave girls.
That's true, but I'd find it truly bizarre if they were using different base lines for no apparent reason...
Doing some basic research by going to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, their report says overall Australia was only 0.21 degrees above the base line...that's a pretty significant difference!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...
I'd love to know how GISS comes up with these over-inflated figures?
Am I the only one that finds the concept of lemon juice in coffee disturbing? I have never even heard of anyone doing that before - it's that bizarre!
Incorrectly modded
You're wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html
Hottest summer where? One hot summer does not climate make. And here's the citation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
I'm probably going to modded into oblivion, but I'm sorry I simply don't buy what this article by the World Bank is selling Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher. So there's likely a negative feedback effect that has been left undocumented by most models, and this should be concerning many people in the climate science game. Honestly, this articles smacks of an attempt by the World Bank to scare people into getting on board an ETS - from which they will directly benefit in a financial manner. I really wish that anyone outside of the sphere of science would stop making unfounded claims to push their own agendas.
Furthermore drought in Russia, Europe, and Australia means they aren't having bumper crops to offset that loss.
.
I can't speak for Russia or Europe, but Australia is definitely not in a drought and hasn't been for at least the last 2 years. In fact at the moment we are in the middle of a La Nina event, with more flooding than anything else. Most of our dams are either at 100% capacity, or close to that as well - they'd in fact all be at 100% if it wasn't for "environmental flows".
There's an easy way that they could cajole most people into being tracked, and that's to give them "points" which they can spend on good & services depending on the time spent in the shopping centre, etc. That way, both parties get what they want and Big Brother is happy again as Joe Consumer continues on in blissful ignorance.
I wasn't meaning to imply that all of New Orleans was flooded or built below sea level. I just get annoyed at people who make ridiculous claims like the AC I was originally responding. Thank you for the correction BTW.
Wow, you are misinformed a great deal. Firstly, the water wasn't 100m (300ft) high even in New Orleans. Secondly, New Orleans sits below the water level, which is why they have levees in the first place. They built New Orleans knowing full well that this is a likely scenario, and all it took was a big enough storm to cause this.
Wow, exaggerate much?
Let me answer some of the angry points you made, ok?
And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.
Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.
Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.
There's hardly anything unknown to fear here. The risks are entirely known, although granted, it is possible that there may be some unexpected issues that crop up when we finally do get to mars that the boffins on Earth hadn't foreseen. And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?
Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.
WTF? Now you're just ranting off at a tangent. How about, personally I am just tired of people responding to a post in a knee-jerk manner and making all sorts of assumptions based on zero factual evidence.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.' Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
Then you find the nearest Starfleet Academy shuttle bay, steal a shuttle, and head for the sun. Hmm... something's wrong with that plan, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Simple. You need a metaphasic shield installed first.
I could have sworn you said a "Metaphysical" shield... Sigh, my brain hurts
Oh my God! You're right! I don't anything for sure.
JESUS CHRIST! What if I'm really a toaster?
I mean, I have a lot of the same qualities as a human being, but that doesn't prove anything. What if I'm supposed to be making toast right now?!?!?
The toasters were created by man...they rebelled, they evolved, they look...Human!
Wow, so promiscuity is now considered an undesirable outcome? Perhaps from a religious morals point of view...
Sorry to burst your balloon, but it seems that global ocean temperatures are actually falling, not rising. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
...It seems the third spike (assuming I am reading the graph correctly) occurred around 1060-1080AD.
believe we should be messing with the natural occurances of the solar system. Asteroid collisions are how we got here, how we will end, and how a new smarter, more capable species will come again. Let it happen naturally. End of story.
Tell you what, next time you get critically ill or injured, we should just let you die a natural death so that a new smarter and more capable person can take your place. I say let it happen naturally, End of story.
To quote the person I replied to:
"I used to think of Australia as one of the freest nations in the world (in some respects, even more free than the U.S. itself). What the hell happened???"
Who took away our firearms? Who set up concentration camps in the desert?
And as I recall Internet filtering was raised by Senator Alston to get Senator Harradine onside when he controlled the balance of power. Harradine wanted porn and online gambling filtered. This was back in the mid 90s when JWH was in his 1st term as PM.
Whilst I agree that there was an over-reaction to firearm control by the previous government, the rest of your points are not quite as clear headed.
You can call them concentration camps, but how about we call them detention camps for illegal immigrants. What would you have the Australian government do with these people? Ship them back or just let them out into the general populace. Interestingly with the hard line approach the Liberal government took, there were far fewer illegal immigrants arriving on Australian shores than ever before. And please, don't try to call them refugees, we all know that the vast majority of the people arriving in Australia illegally are simply illegal immigrants trying to jump queues or get into the country in any way they can, including paying someone a bucket load of money to smuggle them in on a leaky fishing boat.
As for the previous government raising internet filtering to gain the support of a certain senator...was it implemented? No? Wow...but this government actually is planning on implementing it and silencing any dissenting voices amongst the general populace in the process.
John Winston Howard happened. It'll take a while for sanity to prevail.
Are you completely out of your skull? This entire initiative of filtering the internet is a LABOR initiative and has had nothing to do with the Libs. In fact, there has been more censoring, bullying and downright jack-booting going on since the Labor party won the election than throughout the entire 12 years that the Libs were in office.
What are you going to mistake 'Levitating' with?
That's all I can think of.
Magic Lactating Trains FTW!