Now MJ is slandering us rather than giving a rational argument (something he has failed to do as of yet). He has already ******* about people who do this. That makes him a hypocrite and completely invalidates any argument, as based off faulty logic as it is , that he has!
PWNZREDWIFLAZERBEEMPEWPEW!!1!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're melting, we're melting
We're melting, we're meltingFollow
#327REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 06 2007 at 1:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Just skimming your article Joph:
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
MetalJeff wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
MetalJeff wrote:
Yea, just as I thought. When asked if you are doing anything to help, you have to say something stupid because you know you aren't.
Wait! "Just as I thought. When you know you've got nothing actually scientific in your corner, you resort to a logical fallacy to hide your lack of data."
Oh boy! I win!
No I thought it'd be interesting to see what the fanatics on this thread were all about really. But now I realize you're all just a bunch of do-nothing elitist with spare time on your hands and in the mood to argue, which makes this entire thread a complete waste of my valuable time.
Back to work.
Umm...
Do you even know what "No holds barred forum for deep OOT discourse." even means? lmao...
Bringing derailâ„¢ back.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
MonxDoT wrote:
Study wrote:
We see that no forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in the past century.
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 2:12pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
MonxDoT wrote:
Study wrote:
We see that no forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in the past century.
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 2:12pm by Jophiel
Isn't there a thin layer of Ozone over Australia because of this...I remember watching a video more than 5 years ago in science class about the thinning of the ozone layer in several areas or something like that.
Bringing derailâ„¢ back.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Joph said,
I don't think I said they were mutually exclusive.
I'm just trying to point out that "Global Warming" has become the cause celebre of the environmentalist.
To such a degree that pretty much all other environmental issues have become down-graded to little or no importance, in the zone of awareness for most of the people on the planet.
I was trying to illustrate that tho' we may (90% sure in fact), that human activity is contributing to GW (to an as yet undetermined extent), we have allowed this all consuming debate over its existance (or not) to completly obscure the fact that there are massive problems that are for sure caused by us, and that because GW has been the focus of the debate, and the very fact that it is a huge problem (if in fact it is aided and abetted by us, therefore implying that we could do something to reverse it) has allowed the concerned population to throw their hands in the air and declare
"this is too big for me as an individual to deal with, so I'm gonna carry on with my environmentally destructive habits, consuming and wasting, until 'they'
(the Government or science community, take your pick) tell me what 'we' should do about it".
Seems pretty clear to me.
But hey. Sorry to interrupt the slagging off of each other thats going on here.
I was just putting forward my opinion on the subject.
/slouches off
Quote:
Dealing with the 100% 'for sures' first, would be a step in the right direction, rather than the present situation, where we are all sittin around arguing as to wether 'we' are the cause of the planets sickness or weather its all natural after all.
Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Seriously, what kind of weak *** argument is this?
Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Seriously, what kind of weak *** argument is this?
I don't think I said they were mutually exclusive.
I'm just trying to point out that "Global Warming" has become the cause celebre of the environmentalist.
To such a degree that pretty much all other environmental issues have become down-graded to little or no importance, in the zone of awareness for most of the people on the planet.
I was trying to illustrate that tho' we may (90% sure in fact), that human activity is contributing to GW (to an as yet undetermined extent), we have allowed this all consuming debate over its existance (or not) to completly obscure the fact that there are massive problems that are for sure caused by us, and that because GW has been the focus of the debate, and the very fact that it is a huge problem (if in fact it is aided and abetted by us, therefore implying that we could do something to reverse it) has allowed the concerned population to throw their hands in the air and declare
"this is too big for me as an individual to deal with, so I'm gonna carry on with my environmentally destructive habits, consuming and wasting, until 'they'
(the Government or science community, take your pick) tell me what 'we' should do about it".
Seems pretty clear to me.
But hey. Sorry to interrupt the slagging off of each other thats going on here.
I was just putting forward my opinion on the subject.
/slouches off
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Isn't there a thin layer of Ozone over Australia because of this...I remember watching a video more than 5 years ago in science class about the thinning of the ozone layer in several areas or something like that.
Ozone is formed at the very edge of the atmosphere. If I remember correctly, it is formed when UV rays from the sun, collide with O2 molecules, wich results in a splitting of the O2 forming O (or Ozone).
Ozone is inherantly unstable. The O molecule bounces around at the edge of our atmosphere until it connects to anothe O molecule, thereby forming O2 again.
Because UV rays arrive at the earths atmosphere at a more perpendicular plane at the equator, than at the poles, the UV/O2 collisions are more violent and the breaking off of o molecules more prevalent. hence the ozone layer is 'thicker at the equateor than at the poles. At the poles, UV light arrives at an angle, so is less likely to cause as many 'collisions' resulting in two O molecules. Australia and NZ, where I am ,have thinner Ozone layers 'cos we are closer to the poles.
There are regular seasonal changes in this part of the world as to the relative thickness of the layer.
Because of the manner in wich Ozone is continually formed/ destroyed/ reformed, the relative thickness of the layer is constantly changing. Its under a state of continual renewal. Wich is why it recovered so quickly after the CFC thing back in the 70's.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Ozone is 03, which is made up by UV hitting O2 splitting it and it then bonds with other 02 forming the O3.
It is in the stratosphere (2nd layer) not the very edge of the atmosphere
And if memory recalls correctly it should be thicker near the poles than it is at the equator.
It is in the stratosphere (2nd layer) not the very edge of the atmosphere
And if memory recalls correctly it should be thicker near the poles than it is at the equator.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
Ozone is 03, which is made up by UV hitting O2 splitting it and it then bonds with other 02 forming the O3.
It is in the stratosphere (2nd layer) not the very edge of the atmosphere
It is in the stratosphere (2nd layer) not the very edge of the atmosphere
Oops. Quite right. I was dredging it up from memory. I stand corrected.
Got a feeling I might be right about the poles/equator thing tho...I'll go look.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Did a quick look on wikipedia (oh so reliable I know) and they state that the Ozone above you at the N. Pole should be thicker than that at the Equator. However that might be total ozone not just the ozone layer. Might also have something to do with the Earth flattening at the poles rather than being a perfect sphere, who knows. You might also be finding info stating that the ozone is thicker at the equator mainly because ozone destroying mats in the atmosphere seem to wind up at the poles (which is why the holes are found at the poles).
Don't know enough to be certain on that one, much like you I was just going off memory of a first year atmospheric science course in Uni.
Don't know enough to be certain on that one, much like you I was just going off memory of a first year atmospheric science course in Uni.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
It seems, now that I've had a bit of a quick look, that its got a whole lot to do with temperature gradients and vortices.
After a bit of a skim it would appear to me that warmer air, rising, is more conducive to the forming of O3. Hence a lesser concentration of Ozone at the poles.
Just goes to show what you can learn while 'wasting some time' in the Arsylum!
And after posting this, I had the thought that as the air is a lot colder at the poles, and cold air sinks, then it would seem logical that anything floating around in the upper atmosphere (including O3) at the poles, would tend to sink, especially in winter. again leading to a lower upper atmosphere density of O3 and a generalised 'mixing' of atmospheric components at lower altitudes.......
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 6:29pm by paulsol
After a bit of a skim it would appear to me that warmer air, rising, is more conducive to the forming of O3. Hence a lesser concentration of Ozone at the poles.
Just goes to show what you can learn while 'wasting some time' in the Arsylum!
And after posting this, I had the thought that as the air is a lot colder at the poles, and cold air sinks, then it would seem logical that anything floating around in the upper atmosphere (including O3) at the poles, would tend to sink, especially in winter. again leading to a lower upper atmosphere density of O3 and a generalised 'mixing' of atmospheric components at lower altitudes.......
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 6:29pm by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
MonxDoT wrote:
But it's still not directly taking into account with hard data the phenomena I linked to earlier. They're talking about "mild" changes in the magnetic field, I don't see mention of a massive flip.
Honestly, you'd do much better to try to find evidence that your "massive flip" is a major component of the climate change than to argue that, since no one is writing papers exclusively about how its not, that's signs of some scientific cabal.
Edit: All this aside, I need to move the 5" of snow off my driveway now. So you kids have fun.
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 3:26pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
MonxDoT wrote:
But it's still not directly taking into account with hard data the phenomena I linked to earlier. They're talking about "mild" changes in the magnetic field, I don't see mention of a massive flip.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_magnetic.html
Well, they published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You, sir, post in a forum called the assylum from behind the shield of anonymity. So do I. That's why, if I want to convince anyone, I refer to the former, not the latter.
Yes, the scientists could be wrong. Yes, there is some debate within the community as to the magnitude of the effect. These are the ways through which you can argue your point without being nonsensical.
yossarian wrote:
... These are the ways through which you can argue your point without being nonsensical.
*snicker*
You did read this thread, right?
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 9:00pm by GitSlayer
jebus you people are still going at it?
but we're getting an early spring
I know they say it's been since '99 that he last didnt see his shadow but it sure as hell seems a lot longer than that. Every Groundhogs day I would wish for a shotgun when I heard his predictions. Not that it's scientifically accurate. It's just more of having your superstitious hopes dashed and stomped on while you deal with freezing cold weather.
Quote:
PUNXSUTAWNEY, Pa. - A new pair of hands pulled him from his stump this year, so it was only fitting that Punxsutawney Phil offered a new prediction.
ADVERTISEMENT
The groundhog did not see his shadow Friday which, according to German folklore, means folks can expect an early spring instead of six more weeks of winter.
Since 1886, Phil has seen his shadow 96 times, hasn't seen it 14 times, and there are no records for nine years, according to the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. The last time Phil failed to see his shadow was in 1999.
More than 15,000 revelers danced or milled about in a misty snow waiting for the prediction, as fireworks exploded overhead and the "Pennsylvania Polka" and other music blared in the background.
Longtime handler Bill Deeley retired after more than a dozen years and was replaced Friday by Punxsutawney Groundhog Club Inner Circle members John Griffiths and Ben Hughes.
Each Feb. 2, thousands of people descend on Punxsutawney, a town of approximately 6,100 people about 65 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, to celebrate what had essentially been a German superstition.
The Germans believed that if a hibernating animal cast a shadow on Feb. 2 — the Christian holiday of Candlemas — winter would last another six weeks. If no shadow was seen, legend said spring would come early.
ADVERTISEMENT
The groundhog did not see his shadow Friday which, according to German folklore, means folks can expect an early spring instead of six more weeks of winter.
Since 1886, Phil has seen his shadow 96 times, hasn't seen it 14 times, and there are no records for nine years, according to the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. The last time Phil failed to see his shadow was in 1999.
More than 15,000 revelers danced or milled about in a misty snow waiting for the prediction, as fireworks exploded overhead and the "Pennsylvania Polka" and other music blared in the background.
Longtime handler Bill Deeley retired after more than a dozen years and was replaced Friday by Punxsutawney Groundhog Club Inner Circle members John Griffiths and Ben Hughes.
Each Feb. 2, thousands of people descend on Punxsutawney, a town of approximately 6,100 people about 65 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, to celebrate what had essentially been a German superstition.
The Germans believed that if a hibernating animal cast a shadow on Feb. 2 — the Christian holiday of Candlemas — winter would last another six weeks. If no shadow was seen, legend said spring would come early.
I know they say it's been since '99 that he last didnt see his shadow but it sure as hell seems a lot longer than that. Every Groundhogs day I would wish for a shotgun when I heard his predictions. Not that it's scientifically accurate. It's just more of having your superstitious hopes dashed and stomped on while you deal with freezing cold weather.
#346REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 07 2007 at 11:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
I haven't the inclination to go through some skeptic's paper and try to look up rebuttals for it, point by point. But, since we were dicussing credibility, anyone who brings up Mann's "hockey stick" graph with the "It's all wrong!" attitude and excludes the fact that the National Academies of Science, by request of Congress, reviewed its data post-criticism and determined that its conclusions were still valid has little credibility with me. I mean, should I just assume that this fellow stopped reading the science papers back in 2006? I'm too lazy to look up new cites but, taken from the last thread...
Edited, Feb 7th 2007 11:48am by Jophiel
Nature (June 2006) wrote:
The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the work.
New Scientist (July 2006) wrote:
The NAS report says that the past few decades have been the warmest in the past 400 years and that it is "probable" that the last 25 years have been the warmest since AD 900. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House science committee, requested the report in November 2005 in response to the political debate around the work of palaeoclimatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University at University Park. Mann's work examined average temperatures over the past 1000 years. When he plotted the results they showed that for the first 900 years there was little variation — like the shaft of a hockey stick — but that there has since been a spike of massive warming — the blade of the stick.
[...]
"The report concludes that the 'hockey stick' graph of global warming is real"
[...]
"The report concludes that the 'hockey stick' graph of global warming is real"
Edited, Feb 7th 2007 11:48am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't the inclination to go through some skeptic's paper and try to look up rebuttals for it, point by point. But, since we were dicussing credibility, anyone who brings up Mann's "hockey stick" graph with the "It's all wrong!" attitude and excludes the fact that the National Academies of Science, by request of Congress, reviewed its data post-criticism and determined that its conclusions were still valid has little credibility with me. I mean, should I just assume that this fellow stopped reading the science papers back in 2006? I'm too lazy to look up new cites but, taken from the last thread...
I'm still of the opinion that the issue is about semantics though. The NAS essentially confirms the "findings" of Mann, specifically with regards to the temperature measurements during the last half century or so and their effects. No one's debating that. His original graph was incorrect though. That's where the issue is. Because many people still to this day seem to proceed from the assumption that global temperatures were constant for 900 years right up until the 20th century and then suddenly global industrialization appeared and caused a huge spike.
The spike is still "valid" data. That's not being argued. It's the other 900 years and how they make that data look more significant that is. The NAS may certainly view the inaccuracy of that 900 years of data is somewhat insignificant (and when you just graph the average over that time period it *is* insignificant). However, the impression given to a layman who sees a flat line followed by an upward spike at the end is grossly out of proportion to the impression given by a more accurate line that moves up and down for 900 years, with the exact same upward spike at the end.
I've argued this point (or one similar to it) in every debate we've ever had on this topic (and a ton of other science related topics as well). It's not always about what the science says as much as how the laypeople view that science. Cause the scientists don't pass the laws. They present data, which is then interpreted for politicians, and *they* make the laws. And in many cases, it's interpreted by political activists for the masses, who then turn around and apply pressure to those politicians.
The significance of the inaccuracies of Mann's data in a scientific sense are vastly overshadowed by their significance in a political sense. A goodly percentage of those who seem to blindly follow the Global Warming bandwagon do seem to be operating off of false assumptions created by Mann's false data. That's where the significance comes in. You can downplay it. The NAS can downplay it. But the "damage" from his bad research has already been done politically. The "cause" was created based on the original hockeystick graph. And once that got rolling, no amount of going back and fixing the original data changes that process. There are millions of people who are convinced that Global Warming's effects been more dramatic then they really have been because of that graph. And that's because the graph falsely created a much more apparent connection between industrializion and global temperatures then there really was.
The increase is still correct. That's what the NAS is saying. But the impression of the importance of that increase is not. But you can't go back in time and change people's impressions, can you?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that the issue is about semantics though.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
More proof that global warming is a manipulated politicized hoax:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
Quote:
Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff
06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007
By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
KGW photo
Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.
“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,†Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,†Kulongoski said.
Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.
In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.
A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.
Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"
(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007
By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
KGW photo
Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.
“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,†Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,†Kulongoski said.
Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.
In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.
A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.
Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"
(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
Perhaps questionable decisions by the Oregon state government aside, nothing in that story actually serves to contradict the data on the topic. Which is kind of what you'd need to do to show a "hoax" rather than just bad decision making in the Oregon statehouse.
More on Michael Mann, just for giggles...
Edited, Feb 8th 2007 6:44am by Jophiel
More on Michael Mann, just for giggles...
New Scientist (Dec 2006) wrote:
THE "hockey stick" graph, which shows a rapid rise in world temperatures over recent decades, has been both poster child for the dangers of human- induced global warming and prime target for climate change sceptics. They cite an anomaly in the graph — it does not record a dip in temperature between 1200 and 1850 — as reason to ditch the whole thing. Now new data may help explain why the graph does not record the "little ice age".
Ocean currents in the North Atlantic, dominated by the Gulf Stream, usually keep winter temperatures in western Europe mild by carrying warm water north from the tropics towards Europe and heating the westerly winds travelling from North America. Climate scientists have suspected that a weak Gulf Stream may have caused the little ice age, but until now there has been no direct evidence for this theory.
Jean Lynch-Stieglitz at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and her colleagues calculated the strength of the Gulf Stream during the little ice age by looking at marine fossils in sediment cores taken from the Straits of Florida. Ocean circulation is driven by variations in water density caused by differences in temperature and salinity. These variations also affect the ratio of oxygen isotopes in marine fossil shells. By measuring these isotope ratios, the team calculated that the Gulf Stream was 10 per cent weaker during the little ice age (Nature, vol 444, p 601).
Moreover, the cooling that resulted was confined mainly to the northern hemisphere, says Lynch-Stieglitz — which indicates it was a regional effect. Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who constructed the hockey stick graph, has always argued that if this were so, the little ice age would not show up on a global temperature record (New Scientist, 18 March, p 40).
"We're seeing a rearrangement of heat around the globe — so globally overall it's not colder," says Lynch-Stieglitz.
Ocean currents in the North Atlantic, dominated by the Gulf Stream, usually keep winter temperatures in western Europe mild by carrying warm water north from the tropics towards Europe and heating the westerly winds travelling from North America. Climate scientists have suspected that a weak Gulf Stream may have caused the little ice age, but until now there has been no direct evidence for this theory.
Jean Lynch-Stieglitz at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and her colleagues calculated the strength of the Gulf Stream during the little ice age by looking at marine fossils in sediment cores taken from the Straits of Florida. Ocean circulation is driven by variations in water density caused by differences in temperature and salinity. These variations also affect the ratio of oxygen isotopes in marine fossil shells. By measuring these isotope ratios, the team calculated that the Gulf Stream was 10 per cent weaker during the little ice age (Nature, vol 444, p 601).
Moreover, the cooling that resulted was confined mainly to the northern hemisphere, says Lynch-Stieglitz — which indicates it was a regional effect. Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who constructed the hockey stick graph, has always argued that if this were so, the little ice age would not show up on a global temperature record (New Scientist, 18 March, p 40).
"We're seeing a rearrangement of heat around the globe — so globally overall it's not colder," says Lynch-Stieglitz.
Edited, Feb 8th 2007 6:44am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 322
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (322)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're melting, we're melting
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC