here's an interesting post on the hockey stick often referred to in climate discussions, about how the temperature is going up. also check out the comments on page 5, specifically the ones by david holland and jpj.
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
more on climate change
a follow-up about global warming, this is professor robert carter from the marine geopsyhical laboratory at james cook university in australia. he explains the current situation really well:
Thursday, April 24, 2008
more stuff on climate
so here's another bit of information about the movie an inconvenient truth. I think this truth is quite inconvenient:
Friday, October 12, 2007
peace and climate change?
I know I shouldn't, but now that al gore and ipcc are awarded the nobel peace prize for 2007, I think there's something strange going on... not so much because environmental changes have nothing to do with peace, because they do (read collapse by jared diamond for more about that), but mostly because human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming is far from certain, and especially not when it comes to al gore's movie an inconvenient truth. here's a report about a high court judge in the uk that ruled that the movie can only be distributed to schools in the country together "only if it was accompanied by new guidlines [sic] to balance the former US vice-president’s “one-sided” views". they found nine inconvenient (pun intended) faults in gore's movie:
Error one
Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.
The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr. Gore’s “wake-up call”. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water — “but only after, and over, millennia.”
Error two
Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”
Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
Error three
Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” — the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.
Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.
Error four
Gore: He asserted — by ridiculing the opposite view — that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.
Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Error five
Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.
Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
Error six
Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.
Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
Error seven
Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.
Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.
Error eight
Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances — up to 60 miles — to find the ice”.
Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.” That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued — “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
Error nine
Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.
Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
interesting, huh? there's more about it... three links:
Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film - the article about the court ruling
One Man Challenges the World According to Gore - a blog post commenting it
Climate Change Hysteria and Al Gore’s “Chicken Little” Scare Tactics - a long but interesting note about the whole climate change question. read especially the section entitled "Is the Science Certain? Is the Debate Over?" whether there really is global consensus among the scientists or not.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Error one
Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.
The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr. Gore’s “wake-up call”. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water — “but only after, and over, millennia.”
Error two
Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”
Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
Error three
Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” — the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.
Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.
Error four
Gore: He asserted — by ridiculing the opposite view — that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.
Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Error five
Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.
Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
Error six
Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.
Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
Error seven
Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.
Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.
Error eight
Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances — up to 60 miles — to find the ice”.
Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.” That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued — “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
Error nine
Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.
Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
interesting, huh? there's more about it... three links:
I'll leave it at that for now.
Friday, October 05, 2007
an inconvenient truth banned?
cnn reported this:
funny, eh? :)
notice also how the weatherman notes that global warming and hurricanes seem to have no correlation at all. read here for more.
funny, eh? :)
notice also how the weatherman notes that global warming and hurricanes seem to have no correlation at all. read here for more.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
weather vs weather
fall is officially here in stockholm now... it's beautiful sunshine, but around 7-8 degrees warm (cold?). I checked the haifa weather for the upcoming 10 days: sun (29 degrees), sun (28), sun (28), sun (28), sun (27), sun (27), sun (27), sun (27), sun (27), sun (28).
I think I could get used to that...
I think I could get used to that...
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
and eternally cursed be the weather...
training cancelled because of too much rain. I'm looking forward to global warming.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
I just signed!
finally signed for getting my license, let's see when my first game is! will probably start on the bench, but it should be fun... today's practice was no good though, had a couple of good shots, but then when we were playing I missed 4 clear chances. can't keep that up.
in other news, summer is gone. there's some cold weather over finland which is affecting us. who said that climate change was coming? so today finally was the historical day, when I wore a sweater for the first time in about 10 years. only wore it to the training and during the warmup, but I think it still counts. and then afterwards too, of course...
in other news, summer is gone. there's some cold weather over finland which is affecting us. who said that climate change was coming? so today finally was the historical day, when I wore a sweater for the first time in about 10 years. only wore it to the training and during the warmup, but I think it still counts. and then afterwards too, of course...
Saturday, July 07, 2007
live earth?
if you didn't know, today was the day of live earth, a series of concerts to remind people that our world is in big trouble. I'd say the only trouble we have is that we're listening to them. sure, some of the music was good, so it's not all lost.
I found a very interesting post regarding climate change, looking at the "proofs" of ipcc and pretty much disclaiming all of them. too bad it's in swedish...
this is an interesting quote though, by kevin trenberth, one of the main authors of the ipcc climate report:
"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (source)
I found a very interesting post regarding climate change, looking at the "proofs" of ipcc and pretty much disclaiming all of them. too bad it's in swedish...
this is an interesting quote though, by kevin trenberth, one of the main authors of the ipcc climate report:
"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (source)
Saturday, June 16, 2007
some moral aspects on climate change
I promised a while ago to write my take and thoughts on climate change, and so I will try to do that...
at the houseparty last weekend I was asked what it would take me to start believing that humans were in fact mainly responsible for climate change. I don't remember having a good answer then, but I have one now: when there is ample evidence for it. as long as there are professors at acknowledged universities (university of bermuda does not count!) claiming it's simply not true, rather than politicians and alarmists/activitists, I will believe them. scientific facts show that other planets, e.g. neptune and mars, are getting warmer with natural causes (we're not affecting those planets now, are we?) and patterns very similar to the earth. world climate report is a very interesting blog dealing with many issues in this regard.
I think one of my main concerns is that this whole climate debate has turned into a witch hunt, where anyone the least sceptic is basically declared a heretic. it slightly reminds of a few centuries back when the church vehemently refused to accept the theory of the non-flatness of the earth. even though there were only approximately two people (galilee and copernicus) believing the earth was round, they turned out to be right.
the consequences, as I've written before, are that many developing countries are not being able or allowed to develop, since they are being forced to be experimenting with renewable sources of energy, which are often more expensive and less efficient. sure, they might be cleaner, but is it worth it?
here's a bit more on climate change and the moral aspects of it.
now, I'm not saying that the minority is always right or that we shouldn't be doing anything at all about the effects of climate change and completely ignore it. the climate *is* changing, people just can't agree on whether we have anything to do with the big picture or not. here's an interesting video about it:
the point he's making is simply very similar to pascal's wager. do we want to risk doing nothing at all to see what happens in the end? how morally justifiable is that really?
I kinda don't agree with his second video though, as it gets too much on the side that claims anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is true:
there have been proven cases of human-caused climate change which have led to collapses in society, societies that were in their peak and prime. easter islands, the maya are two historical examples, and there are plenty more. and these are societies and civilizations that lasted for more than 1000 years, which is far more than what our current civilization has been around. (I'm reading a book about it now, and will review it later.) and if nothing is done or considered, we do face the risk of sealing our own fate, regardless of the major climate changes happening in the world.
it's never responsible to let out pollution so that it makes people feel ill and hurts the environment, and it's never acceptable to use less efficient means just because it's easier or cheaper, we have to always consider the consequences of all our actions.
as for climate change, what I think is needed is unbiased research by scientists without any political agenda involved. as of right now there are too many biased people involved who want to skew the facts so that it fits with their plans and programs. that will naturally prove very costly in the long run.
at the houseparty last weekend I was asked what it would take me to start believing that humans were in fact mainly responsible for climate change. I don't remember having a good answer then, but I have one now: when there is ample evidence for it. as long as there are professors at acknowledged universities (university of bermuda does not count!) claiming it's simply not true, rather than politicians and alarmists/activitists, I will believe them. scientific facts show that other planets, e.g. neptune and mars, are getting warmer with natural causes (we're not affecting those planets now, are we?) and patterns very similar to the earth. world climate report is a very interesting blog dealing with many issues in this regard.
I think one of my main concerns is that this whole climate debate has turned into a witch hunt, where anyone the least sceptic is basically declared a heretic. it slightly reminds of a few centuries back when the church vehemently refused to accept the theory of the non-flatness of the earth. even though there were only approximately two people (galilee and copernicus) believing the earth was round, they turned out to be right.
the consequences, as I've written before, are that many developing countries are not being able or allowed to develop, since they are being forced to be experimenting with renewable sources of energy, which are often more expensive and less efficient. sure, they might be cleaner, but is it worth it?
here's a bit more on climate change and the moral aspects of it.
now, I'm not saying that the minority is always right or that we shouldn't be doing anything at all about the effects of climate change and completely ignore it. the climate *is* changing, people just can't agree on whether we have anything to do with the big picture or not. here's an interesting video about it:
the point he's making is simply very similar to pascal's wager. do we want to risk doing nothing at all to see what happens in the end? how morally justifiable is that really?
I kinda don't agree with his second video though, as it gets too much on the side that claims anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is true:
there have been proven cases of human-caused climate change which have led to collapses in society, societies that were in their peak and prime. easter islands, the maya are two historical examples, and there are plenty more. and these are societies and civilizations that lasted for more than 1000 years, which is far more than what our current civilization has been around. (I'm reading a book about it now, and will review it later.) and if nothing is done or considered, we do face the risk of sealing our own fate, regardless of the major climate changes happening in the world.
it's never responsible to let out pollution so that it makes people feel ill and hurts the environment, and it's never acceptable to use less efficient means just because it's easier or cheaper, we have to always consider the consequences of all our actions.
as for climate change, what I think is needed is unbiased research by scientists without any political agenda involved. as of right now there are too many biased people involved who want to skew the facts so that it fits with their plans and programs. that will naturally prove very costly in the long run.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
more on climate change
here is a very interesting article on climate change on neptune. mars is also getting warmer.
basically the warming of neptune is related to solar activity, and this seems to be very similar to the pattern of how the earth is warming up. claiming that humans have something to do with the warming up on neptune is, in their own words, "an astronomical stretch, to say the least."
I'll try and write a bit on my take about it all later on.
basically the warming of neptune is related to solar activity, and this seems to be very similar to the pattern of how the earth is warming up. claiming that humans have something to do with the warming up on neptune is, in their own words, "an astronomical stretch, to say the least."
I'll try and write a bit on my take about it all later on.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
I *so* want to read this article...
the nation has a very interesting article on climate change.
headline: Is Global Warming a Sin?
here's the introduction:
"In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed."
I really like the second paragraph. unfortunately, the article is for subscribers only :(
headline: Is Global Warming a Sin?
here's the introduction:
"In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed."
I really like the second paragraph. unfortunately, the article is for subscribers only :(
Friday, May 04, 2007
climate change
been reading a lot about climate change, and trying to make up my opinion on what I think. unfortunately, it seems to be quite difficult. one side is making an argument, the other side counters it with some proofs, and then those proofs get shot down by something else. the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that it is in fact getting warmer. why, how, how much and what will happen when is still up for debate. I know one thing for sure, any scientist or journalist that write about catastrophic events happening tomorrow is most probably lying and only looking for headlines. because really, how interesting is it to hear someone say "oh, it's just going to continue slowly like this for a while, and then we'll see what happens"?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
scandal! it's a scandal!
ask any kid on the street what it is that makes the weather warmer, and he will answer "the sun". ask an adult and they will probably say something along the lines of "global warming, caused by the greenhouse gases produced by humans". what is the truth?
I just saw a documentary that really made me rethink things, especially after seeing al gore's an inconvenient truth the day before yesterday (here). the great global warming swindle is a british documentary which produces the other side of the global warming story. with interviews of quite many scientists from renowned universities and graphs, they present their case. and it is interesting, to say the least.
the first issue that they deal with is the question if global warming is happening. next, what is the reason for it? third, why are we being told what we are?
in the 1970s, there were claims that we were on our way to a global cooling period and an imminent ice age. now we are being told the opposite. what is happening?
the answer they provide is that these are cyclical occurances in the normal climatic processes of the earth. there have been periods of much warmer climate (the medieval warm period, between 800-1300), which were generally considered times of great prosperity in europe. what is happening is normal and natural, and quite expected to happen.
needless to say, there is a lot of controversy in this issue as to what the truth is in regards to global warming. this documentary essentially disregards all human influence on climate, claiming that it's mostly solar activity and its influences on cloud forming that is responsible for the changes in temperature. carbon dioxide and temperature is only loosely related, and only in the opposite way than what has been stated - higher temperature causes more carbon dioxide to remain in the atmosphere, and sometimes with an extreme delay of a couple of hundred years.
and why? enter a few conspiracy theories... to start with, there is a lot of money in this industry, for the scientists, journalists and activists that have careers and professions that depend upon this. if scientists are writing a paper and relate it to global warming, there is a much greater chance for them of receiving funding for their research.
there are claims that much of the whole environmentalist agenda is essentially political and against capitalism, globalization, the US, etc etc. there are also theories that margaret thatcher used global warming to promote nuclear power.
and finally, what I found most disturbing, that the global warming campaign is used as a tool to restrict the developing countries from being able to develop. since non-fossil fuels (solar/wind power, etc) are so expensive and inefficient, a "luxurious experimentation", these countries have no chance of reaching up to the standards of the modern, developed countries. this is described as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."
there is naturally loads of controversy in regards to this documentary. how much of it is true and truly scientific, and what is fabricated? read this for a good start, but I think everyone should see the movie and form their opinion...
(and the topic is of course from queen's song scandal.)
I just saw a documentary that really made me rethink things, especially after seeing al gore's an inconvenient truth the day before yesterday (here). the great global warming swindle is a british documentary which produces the other side of the global warming story. with interviews of quite many scientists from renowned universities and graphs, they present their case. and it is interesting, to say the least.
the first issue that they deal with is the question if global warming is happening. next, what is the reason for it? third, why are we being told what we are?
in the 1970s, there were claims that we were on our way to a global cooling period and an imminent ice age. now we are being told the opposite. what is happening?
the answer they provide is that these are cyclical occurances in the normal climatic processes of the earth. there have been periods of much warmer climate (the medieval warm period, between 800-1300), which were generally considered times of great prosperity in europe. what is happening is normal and natural, and quite expected to happen.
needless to say, there is a lot of controversy in this issue as to what the truth is in regards to global warming. this documentary essentially disregards all human influence on climate, claiming that it's mostly solar activity and its influences on cloud forming that is responsible for the changes in temperature. carbon dioxide and temperature is only loosely related, and only in the opposite way than what has been stated - higher temperature causes more carbon dioxide to remain in the atmosphere, and sometimes with an extreme delay of a couple of hundred years.
and why? enter a few conspiracy theories... to start with, there is a lot of money in this industry, for the scientists, journalists and activists that have careers and professions that depend upon this. if scientists are writing a paper and relate it to global warming, there is a much greater chance for them of receiving funding for their research.
there are claims that much of the whole environmentalist agenda is essentially political and against capitalism, globalization, the US, etc etc. there are also theories that margaret thatcher used global warming to promote nuclear power.
and finally, what I found most disturbing, that the global warming campaign is used as a tool to restrict the developing countries from being able to develop. since non-fossil fuels (solar/wind power, etc) are so expensive and inefficient, a "luxurious experimentation", these countries have no chance of reaching up to the standards of the modern, developed countries. this is described as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."
there is naturally loads of controversy in regards to this documentary. how much of it is true and truly scientific, and what is fabricated? read this for a good start, but I think everyone should see the movie and form their opinion...
(and the topic is of course from queen's song scandal.)
Monday, April 30, 2007
climate change and greenhouse effect
just saw an inconvenient truth, al gore's documentary about climate change and such. the movie in itself was quite interesting, hearing about what's going on in the world today, but his "reflective" moments weren't all that impressive. could've done without them...
tomorrow I'll be watching the great global warming swindle, to hear the other side of the story. there are some clear and indisbutable facts, such as that it is getting warmer, the ice is melting and things like that, but the question is - whose fault is it? how much have we affected things, and what can we do about it now?
there's a lot of stuff going around about al gore not living the way he "preaches". for example, check here. although hypocrisy is never good, that doesn't take away the urgency of what's going on with the planet.
as human beings, we have a great responsibility to take care of our planet. God has created the planet and set certain physical laws that govern how things work. as any sort of law - physical, social, spiritual - all actions we make have their reactions and consequences. we have to be careful so we don't go too far in starting processes we can't reverse...
tomorrow I'll be watching the great global warming swindle, to hear the other side of the story. there are some clear and indisbutable facts, such as that it is getting warmer, the ice is melting and things like that, but the question is - whose fault is it? how much have we affected things, and what can we do about it now?
there's a lot of stuff going around about al gore not living the way he "preaches". for example, check here. although hypocrisy is never good, that doesn't take away the urgency of what's going on with the planet.
as human beings, we have a great responsibility to take care of our planet. God has created the planet and set certain physical laws that govern how things work. as any sort of law - physical, social, spiritual - all actions we make have their reactions and consequences. we have to be careful so we don't go too far in starting processes we can't reverse...
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
-17? who came up with that idea???
it's cold outside. very cold. when I woke up, it said -17 (that's around 0F for you metrically challenged). it's far from any sort of record, but still. it's cold outside. very cold. seems global warming hasn't reached us here. yet.
what am I doing here? I wish I could say it's my last winter, but I'm not too sure about that either...
what am I doing here? I wish I could say it's my last winter, but I'm not too sure about that either...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)