A rather detailed refutation of "An Inconvenient Truth" is at http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf
A rather detailed refutation of "An Inconvenient Truth" is at http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf
Believe anything pushed by Al Gore?????
You have got to be joking.
There are two types of scientists. Junk Scientists - Al's mates - and Scientists that follow the correct scientific method.
The Junkies modify/select the data to fit the hypothesis/ideology, while the real scientists modify the hypothesis to fit the data and use controls.
If you cannot use a control to isolate one factor, then the analysis is meaningless - this does not faze the Junkies.
Regards
John
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts ofIndia,Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -- and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 -- years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases -- all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
"The Cooling World": From Newsweek, April 28, 1975. ?1975 Newsweek Inc.
how much coal is burnt to run a computer. all this talk about greenhouse gas.we should all go back to chiseling shit onto stone.i can hear the tide calling.
Haines Signature "FinaLeigh" 580F 135 Optimax
CH 81 & 72 VHF
Thanks for posting the link to predict weather Seajay. A very interesting site and one that I have added to 'favourites'Originally Posted by seajay1
"Rain events to note
Jan 1st week cyclonic, wet down E cost, QSLD and NSW, VIC, WA, mid jan cyclonic in NE
Feb 1st week wet coastal NSW, midmth wet QSLD, NSW, last wk wet QSLD, VIC
Mar 1st week rain NSW, last week wet NSW and SA
Apr 1st week QSLD wet, 2nd week NSW, TAS, 3rd week VIC, 4th week NSW, TAS
May 4th week wet WA, VIC, QSLD, NSW, TAS
June 1st week very cold NSW
Nov 1st week very wet"
The above is from hsi 2007 predictions...not too accurate on the firts week of Jan.
I doubt anyone can accurately forecast the weather long range.
I'm with Greg about the accuracy of any long range weather forecasts BUT the predict weather web site makes an excellent common sense read. Worth a visit IMO.
KC
a little pic i found of the murry river during drought the locals going for a picnic on the river bed at riversdale the 1st of january 1914 drought what drought. or the start of global warming?
Last edited by fishingjew; 31-01-2007 at 11:24 PM.
There will be days when the fishing is better than one's most optimistic forecast, others when it is far worse. Either is a gain over just staying home.
please delete.
Last edited by tunaman; 03-02-2007 at 01:49 AM.
Just watched it on DVD and it makes compelling viewing. What a different world we would live in today if this guy had won the US election!!
I have spent a fair bit of time looking at the variuos published reports which are contrary to this production
Everyone should see this and then do some homework. It may just be one side of the coin but it is certainly thought provoking.
KC
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
