For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.
Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?
• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research
This is a very informative article. I am going to have to come back and read this more in depth when I am not as tired as I am now. Thanks so much for sharing this - it really is a great read!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ---
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." -Scott Adams
The article didn't address global dimming but very effective nonetheless. Paint one side as extremist crazies and voice for a middle ground of "we aren't sure of where it's going to go".
quote:In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here?
Yes, that an intelligent person would find anything the least bit scientific about such a terrible strawman.
For starters, the 28-year period is a silly measurement and no climatologist would ever use it as inductive evidence to support a scientific theory. Secondly, the important aspect of global warming is the warming at the extremities of the earth's axis (i.e. where all the ice is). Lastly, long-term geological evidence suggests that we are in a period of unusual climate change that is severely affecting the polar ice caps.
And no, this isn't just dodgy government science; the data is there, the science behind it is simple - you should all be able to understand why the is not some government conspiracy.
quote:The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The carbon cycle, sun spot cycles and the various long-term sun cycles are important to consider, but these do not show up on the time scales used in presenting current climate change. Also, it is an utter fallacy to think of some changes as 'episodic' or 'unpredictable' - these are all caused and can be taken into account in a mathematically sophisticated model. The 'episodic' collision of two icebergs has its cause in antarctic currents, which are ultimately caused by temperature changes (specifically, heating). It's a vicious cycle in which an iceberg heats and in turn the created currents heat others. Plus, episodic events do not present themselves in global climate measurements (which this article so eagerly asserts as its only piece of data); that just neglects the fundamentals of thermodynamics.
Oh, and as a science student in Australia, let me be the first to tell you that Carter is a hack. The real problem with Carter is that he looks solely at geological evidence, whereas a good climatologist looks at the whole body of evidence, and places a highly warranted bias on Antarctic warming.
The ontologial reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.
quote:Originally posted by Twister: Oh, and as a science student in Australia, let me be the first to tell you that Carter is a hack. The real problem with Carter is that he looks solely at geological evidence, whereas a good climatologist looks at the whole body of evidence, and places a highly warranted bias on Antarctic warming.
As an independant thinking Australian, let me be the first to tell you that Bob Carter is highly respected for his expertise in many environmental fields here............ the chicken little global warming lobby will continue to discredit him though.
Posts: 3724 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Yeah, well, in scientific circles, he's considered a hack. Sure, if you're a newspaper reading, office chair intellectual you'd think he's fantastic, but he's a bad scientist. His simplistic approach is 'if it's dynamic, it's too tough'. The world is a dynamic system, hence we cannot measure the human influence - that's just stupid.
The ontologial reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.
quote:Originally posted by Twister: Yeah, well, in scientific circles, he's considered a hack. Sure, if you're a newspaper reading, office chair intellectual you'd think he's fantastic, but he's a bad scientist. His simplistic approach is 'if it's dynamic, it's too tough'. The world is a dynamic system, hence we cannot measure the human influence - that's just stupid.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
I'll just copy and paste my post from an old df thread.
.........there is no absolute right when it comes to interpreting scientific data. For example..... when the London Times was reporting on the "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894", it seemed all the world was doomed by unsavoury emissions and based on the facts of the day... "one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure."
In the US....
"- At the end of the 19th century, there were an estimated 20 million horses used for transportation in the United States
- On a typical day in New York City, the streets were awash with 60,000 gallons of horse urine and buried beneath 2.5 million pounds of manure.
- Today's federal environmental standards limit automotive tailpipe emissions of all regulated pollutants to less than 5 g/mile driven; a horse emits from its 'analogous points' 640 grams of solid waste and 300 grams of liquid waste per mile walked.
- Tetanus, dysentery, and respiratory infections were serious urban health problems, especially for city children, stemming significantly from unsanitary conditions created by horses.
- The annual cleanup cost of the mess for New York alone, including the removal of 15,000 horses who died annually on the streets, approached $100 million (in today's $).
- One quarter of the farmland in the US was used to grow food for horses."
........ In 1900 there was the crisis of 20 million horses in suburban American streets. By 1920, they were gone. Replaced by the motor car.
So you see, over and over again, history has shown that "the sky is falling" type fear mongering was unnecessary in solving environmental problems.
It's also interesting that the voice of the environmental crusade so often claiming the high moral ground, over the evil corporate world, actually draw fat executive wages through these wealthy environmental groups. All from the fear monger dollar.
It's important to be aware that at big decision making level, all players have some sort of political of corporate agenda even if they claim pure morality.
By the way...... did you know that the Kyoto protocol costs $150 billion per annum to maintain? mmmm God bless beauocracy.
Posts: 3724 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
quote:.........there is no absolute right when it comes to interpreting scientific data.
Oh my freaking God! Show me your science degree. The interpretation of empirical (empirical, that's right 'empirical' is the word we were looking for) data is one of induction. The whole idea of gathering more data is to reduce the error in our statistical models, thus reducing the possible variations on the accepted model. If you want I can give you a little lesson on statistics and the philosophy of science (just ask me and I will). We're slowly moving towards a more more accurate model of climate change, but the various models we have now are pretty good. So good that all the models that fall within the statistical bounds (we can 'interpret' data, but only within in the statistical bounds - we can't draw a negative gradient where the data is, considering variance, presenting an upward trend) present us with a scenario in which the warming of the earth is unusually high considering where we are in the cycles (axis wobble, axis tilt, sun spot, tides, ice age, carbon levels). There's a lovely little eleven year cycle that the sunspots follow, though in this century the surface temperature of the earth as gone up even through the downturn of this cycle.
And yes, we are in the upward (in temperature) stage of the fifteen hundred year cycle, but we're following an exponential increase in a sinusoidal cycle (alarm bells ringing).
quote:So you see, over and over again, history has shown that "the sky is falling" type fear mongering was unnecessary in solving environmental problems.
Because, of course, it'll just sort itself out. No, it doesn't. Someone invented the motor car. This only helps my argument, as it shows that the conclusion of an inductive argument can be avoided in time by human intervention (i.e. the invention of the motor car). Note: human intervention solved human intervention.
quote:It's also interesting that the voice of the environmental crusade so often claiming the high moral ground, over the evil corporate world, actually draw fat executive wages through these wealthy environmental groups. All from the fear monger dollar.
It's important to be aware that at big decision making level, all players have some sort of political of corporate agenda even if they claim pure morality.
By the way...... did you know that the Kyoto protocol costs $150 billion per annum to maintain? mmmm God bless beauocracy.
I don't care. The fact of the matter is, the science says something no matter what the politicians may say. Their corruption does not change the fact that the data points to a problem for us and our planet. This is no reason to reject the data and the analysis of that data.
The ontologial reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.
Right before I went to Arkansas on my second vacation in April I watched a program on global dimming. The program hinted that the problem of global warming was being compounded by the effects of global dimming.
My son is taking biology in college during this term. I asked him what his teacher said about the theory of global warming.
He said that his teacher does not teach anything to be an absolute but the teacher suggested that if the theory of global warming was accurate then it would take a 100,000 years of not operating automoblies to reverse the effects of global warming.
I've got a B.S. Degree in Natural Resource Management. My specialty is aging trees by the primary growth rings. I think they call it dendrochronology.
(If the pen is mightier than the sword then what could be sharper than the word?)
[This message was edited by Phantom_Delta on 05-01-06 at 11:03 AM.]
Posts: 2642 | Location: The Volunteer State | Registered: 06-25-03
For some reason, I am reminded of that movie - The Day After Tomorrow (2004) when I see, Emerald Eyes and Twister arguing above.
Twister to my mind is Jack Hall played by Dennis Quaid, the climatologist trying to break it to the USAmerican govt. that its too late to do anything, while Emerald eyes reminds me of the Vice President of USA who thinks its all just tosh.
Here is a related quote from the movie, which made the connection in my mind.
Jack Hall: Our climate is fragile. The ice caps are disappearing at a dangerous rate. Vice President Becker: Dr. Hall, our economy is every bit as fragile as the environment. Perhaps you should keep that in mind before making sensationalist claims. Jack Hall: Well, the last chunk of ice that broke off was the size of Rhode Island. A lot of folks would say that was pretty sensational.
***
I think this should be in the debate forum, unless members are going to refrain from attacking other people's view-points.
On the other hand, Twister... you can always harp on HAARP. The global warming debunkers would not know where to hide their face, in the face of such exalted science.
quote:originally posted by Emerald Eyes:By the way...... did you know that the Kyoto protocol costs $150 billion per annum to maintain? mmmm God bless beauocracy.
[The] mechanism of using ridicule for the suppression of truth and the prevention of meaningful discussion, is ... deeply ingrained in each and every one of us. -- David Edwards, Burning all Illusions
Watch this space - coming back with so much scientific data, that the debunkers won't want to look at this thread ever again. As for my science degree, I graduated in Life Sciences with a distinction in Nuero-biology and Developmental Biology alonside a mini thesis in Environmental Studies with specific learnings in Water Salinity. Thank you.
-
much love, light and laughter, ananya.
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle.
Posts: 5819 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
When I watched the program on global dimming the folks indicated that air pollution from India was causing global dimming which was adversely affecting the annual rain fall in Africa. They pretty much implied that all the draught and famine and death in one country was a direct result of global dimming that was caused by pollution from India.
They also said that pollution in North America and Europe (especially England) was a serious concern.
(If the pen is mightier than the sword then what could be sharper than the word?)
Posts: 2642 | Location: The Volunteer State | Registered: 06-25-03
May I request that if someone wanted to raise this as a debate as Ananya has suggested, they create a separate thread in the debate forum? I did not intend this thread to be a debate, merely pointing out exactly as my title suggests, certain sceptical thought regarding Global Warming.
Sunday Telegraph Letters 23 4 2006
41 scientists debunk global warming alert
The president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asserts that the evidence for human-caused global warming "is now compelling" and concerning (Letters, April 19).
In a public letter, we have recently advised the Canadian Prime Minister of exactly the opposite - which is that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise' ".
We also noted that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future".
Full list of signatories (Filed: 23/04/2006)
(Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada (Dr) Bob Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia (Dr) R Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa (Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada (Dr) R M Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia (Dr) R. Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa (Dr) Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards (Dr) Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant (Dr) L Graham Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada Mr David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa (Dr) Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Dr) Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently Adjunct Professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa (Dr) David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario Mr Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C. (Dr) Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario (Dr) Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand (Dr) Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Mr William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review Mr George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State Climatologist; past President, American Association of State Climatologists (Dr) Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Dr) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand. (Dr) Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden (Dr) Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota (Dr) Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former Director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS (Dr) Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working Group II, chapter 8 (human health) (Dr) Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland (Dr) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment (Dr) Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change (Dr) Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey (Dr) Asmunn Moene, past Head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway (Dr) August H. Auer, past Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming; previously Chief Meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (Dr) Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z. (Dr) Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K. (Dr) Jack Barrett, retired chemist and spectrocopist, Imperial College London, U.K. (Dr) William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 (Dr) S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service (Dr) Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Mr Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland (Dr) Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former Professor in Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland (Dr) Wibjörn Karlén, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (Dr) Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant (Dr) Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon (Dr) Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, UK; international economist (Dr) Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, UK
Grant.
Stella Splendens December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003 RIP ...Always.
Posts: 1773 | Location: Devon, England | Registered: 02-04-02
quote:Originally posted by Phantom_Delta: When I watched the program on global dimming the folks indicated that air pollution from India was causing global dimming which was adversely affecting the annual rain fall in Africa. They pretty much implied that all the draught and famine and death in one country was a direct result of global dimming that was caused by pollution from India.
Who are these they? Can we have some references?
I agree though. most of the cities in India, have very high air pollution (owing to car and vehicular pollution) stats. But I am doubly sure that if we put all of our air pollution together, we would not be able to match the greenhouse gas effects produced by developed nations.
The only source I found on the net, expounding similar sentiments as portrayed by PD - was the Encyclopedia Wikipedia. It says,
quote:Experiments in the Maldives (comparing the atmosphere over the northern and southern islands) in the 1990s showed that the effect of macroscopic pollutants in the atmosphere at that time (blown south from India) caused about a 10% reduction in sunlight reaching the surface in the area under the pollution cloud – a much greater reduction than expected from the presence of the particles themselves.
Some climate scientists have theorised that aircraft contrails are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a rare opportunity in which to observe the climate of the USA absent from the effect of contrails. During this period an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C was observed in some parts of the US, i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought. -- Source
I think what is being said is that there is an air current in the Indian Ocean that blows the pollution from South of India.
I could be wrong though. Please enlighten me, if necessary. I am all for working against any kind of warming or dimming.
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle.
Posts: 5819 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
A must watch BBC Documentary on Global Warming. Click here for it. Its a Real Media File you will need Real Player to run the video. Run time is 42 mins.
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle.
Posts: 5819 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.
We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism. Land can be healthy or sick, fertile or barren, rich or poor, lovingly nurtured or bled white. Our present attitudes and laws governing the ownership and use of land represent an abuse of the concept of private property.... Today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see and nobody calls the cops. -- Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness (1971)
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 5819 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
I came back, because this year we had one of the worst cold's in India. Usually Mumbai, the city I live in, never has the minimum temperature dropping down below 21 degrees centigrade, this year it dropped to an astonishingly low 8 degree centigrade, and it has never been this cold, in February of all the months. In feb the winter is on the wane.
The worst is that the weatherman says that such a winter means, that summer will be equally harsh, and rains equally bad.
Has the weather been this bad your side of town too?
Sunshine is delicious, rain is refreshing, wind braces us up, snow is exhilarating; there is really no such thing as bad weather, only different kinds of good weather. -- John Ruskin
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 5819 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
