Is news coverage of stories global?
-
I was skiing with some French friends in the week and they hadnt heard about the 'Climategate' emails from the CRU. This struck me as odd, since the CRU prepare data for the IPCC, which IS international of course. I was wondering why French news hadnt given the story the attention it deserves, and this got me to thinking about whether other countries news outlets have coverd it? So, a quesiton to everyone, have you heard of these leaked e-nmails in your countries media or not? If you arent sure just what Climategate is here is a UK news piece on the latest developement: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Well, as you know I live in the UK, so yes - I've heard of these emails. I've also read the rather amusing comments from the guy responsible "I'm not good at paperwork"; great let's put him in charge then.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
I was skiing with some French friends in the week and they hadnt heard about the 'Climategate' emails from the CRU. This struck me as odd, since the CRU prepare data for the IPCC, which IS international of course. I was wondering why French news hadnt given the story the attention it deserves, and this got me to thinking about whether other countries news outlets have coverd it? So, a quesiton to everyone, have you heard of these leaked e-nmails in your countries media or not? If you arent sure just what Climategate is here is a UK news piece on the latest developement: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I'm sure there are people around the globe who don't (or just refuse to) listen/watch TV/radio or read newspapers. Ignorance can sometimes be bliss.
-
I was skiing with some French friends in the week and they hadnt heard about the 'Climategate' emails from the CRU. This struck me as odd, since the CRU prepare data for the IPCC, which IS international of course. I was wondering why French news hadnt given the story the attention it deserves, and this got me to thinking about whether other countries news outlets have coverd it? So, a quesiton to everyone, have you heard of these leaked e-nmails in your countries media or not? If you arent sure just what Climategate is here is a UK news piece on the latest developement: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
As I live in an area that normally gets some snow that melts within a week, I want to now where the global warming is as I trudge through the 16 inches of snow from two weeks ago awaiting the next 4 to 8 inches today? The Nobel committee should ask for their money back! Average snowfall Jan 8.1 Feb 6.2 Mar 4.5 Apr 0.9 May 0.0 Jun 0.0 Jul 0.0 Aug 0.0 Sep T Oct 0.1 Nov 2.3 Dec 5.5 Year 27.6
-
As I live in an area that normally gets some snow that melts within a week, I want to now where the global warming is as I trudge through the 16 inches of snow from two weeks ago awaiting the next 4 to 8 inches today? The Nobel committee should ask for their money back! Average snowfall Jan 8.1 Feb 6.2 Mar 4.5 Apr 0.9 May 0.0 Jun 0.0 Jul 0.0 Aug 0.0 Sep T Oct 0.1 Nov 2.3 Dec 5.5 Year 27.6
Well, as any GWist wil tell you WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE (at least when it suits them to say so). Anyway, Vabcouver is struggling for snow. Lets face it, we just dont know what drives cliamte and weather.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Well, as any GWist wil tell you WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE (at least when it suits them to say so). Anyway, Vabcouver is struggling for snow. Lets face it, we just dont know what drives cliamte and weather.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
This is true... See, the trick is that warming isn't uniform. If the cause is CO2, well then that's going to be concentrated more in urban areas. If you think it's just increased energy from the sun, well, I think the difference in climate between the poles and the equator makes it obvious that different parts of the world receive solar energy differently. So if you increase the temperature in one region, it's going to affect wind and ocean currents among other things (Remember, the atmosphere is like one giant heat-transfer engine)... The currents that dissipate heat from these warmer regions will increase to correct the imbalance, and weather patterns will be affected pretty much everywhere... Anyway, I'm no meteorologist, but as I understand it, the climate will find a new equilibrium ("The Day After Tomorrow" was a HUGE exaggeration, I think), and that equilibrium (Don't #%(*& with the Tetragrammaton!) would be, on average, hotter than before. Ok, I forgot what I was talking about... It's too early to think logically...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
This is true... See, the trick is that warming isn't uniform. If the cause is CO2, well then that's going to be concentrated more in urban areas. If you think it's just increased energy from the sun, well, I think the difference in climate between the poles and the equator makes it obvious that different parts of the world receive solar energy differently. So if you increase the temperature in one region, it's going to affect wind and ocean currents among other things (Remember, the atmosphere is like one giant heat-transfer engine)... The currents that dissipate heat from these warmer regions will increase to correct the imbalance, and weather patterns will be affected pretty much everywhere... Anyway, I'm no meteorologist, but as I understand it, the climate will find a new equilibrium ("The Day After Tomorrow" was a HUGE exaggeration, I think), and that equilibrium (Don't #%(*& with the Tetragrammaton!) would be, on average, hotter than before. Ok, I forgot what I was talking about... It's too early to think logically...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I love all the idiots that say "It's snowing more than ever, so GW must be a myth." The Colbert skit where he shows that the sun vanished, so we are all about to be plunged in an endless night where the mole people will be in charge is just hilarious. What is happening in 1 region obviously trumps the entire planet. And the Jet Stream weakening in the Gulf of Mexico and so being unable to protect Britain like it normally does from snow is just a sign that they are wrong...
-
This is true... See, the trick is that warming isn't uniform. If the cause is CO2, well then that's going to be concentrated more in urban areas. If you think it's just increased energy from the sun, well, I think the difference in climate between the poles and the equator makes it obvious that different parts of the world receive solar energy differently. So if you increase the temperature in one region, it's going to affect wind and ocean currents among other things (Remember, the atmosphere is like one giant heat-transfer engine)... The currents that dissipate heat from these warmer regions will increase to correct the imbalance, and weather patterns will be affected pretty much everywhere... Anyway, I'm no meteorologist, but as I understand it, the climate will find a new equilibrium ("The Day After Tomorrow" was a HUGE exaggeration, I think), and that equilibrium (Don't #%(*& with the Tetragrammaton!) would be, on average, hotter than before. Ok, I forgot what I was talking about... It's too early to think logically...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yes, the extremist garbage produced in the name of AGW is ludicrous, and is actually damaging to the AGW cause. IMO we are looking at something cyclic. The north pole gets as warm as it was in the 30's, the southern hemisphere cooling. I dont see any case for CO2 causing warming. It will moderate temperature, but it wont cause overall warming.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I love all the idiots that say "It's snowing more than ever, so GW must be a myth." The Colbert skit where he shows that the sun vanished, so we are all about to be plunged in an endless night where the mole people will be in charge is just hilarious. What is happening in 1 region obviously trumps the entire planet. And the Jet Stream weakening in the Gulf of Mexico and so being unable to protect Britain like it normally does from snow is just a sign that they are wrong...
-
Yes, the extremist garbage produced in the name of AGW is ludicrous, and is actually damaging to the AGW cause. IMO we are looking at something cyclic. The north pole gets as warm as it was in the 30's, the southern hemisphere cooling. I dont see any case for CO2 causing warming. It will moderate temperature, but it wont cause overall warming.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
BYW I am not the one voter. I dont believe in censoring opinion. However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
If it's worldwide, then possibly. But one region getting more snow doesn't disprove it. Have to look at the entire planet, because the warm/cold regions could just be shifting around. "The Day After Tomorrow," though ridiculously exaggerated and not at all scientific, IS loosely based on a real theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation[^]. I think the idea is that global warming could potentially screw up the ocean currents, which would in turn screw up heat transfer from the equatorial regions toward the poles... Hot areas get hotter, cold areas get colder... Now, I have no idea how credible the theory is... I'm a programmer, not a meteorologist... But it's something to think about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
-
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
Wall-E? Try Idiocracy :) Anyway... I was going to quote St. George (Carlin), but I couldn't remember enough of the skit to do it justice, so I found a link instead... http://amahchewahwah.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/the-planet-is-fine/[^] (NSFW - Language)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I was skiing with some French friends in the week and they hadnt heard about the 'Climategate' emails from the CRU. This struck me as odd, since the CRU prepare data for the IPCC, which IS international of course. I was wondering why French news hadnt given the story the attention it deserves, and this got me to thinking about whether other countries news outlets have coverd it? So, a quesiton to everyone, have you heard of these leaked e-nmails in your countries media or not? If you arent sure just what Climategate is here is a UK news piece on the latest developement: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
If it's worldwide, then possibly. But one region getting more snow doesn't disprove it. Have to look at the entire planet, because the warm/cold regions could just be shifting around. "The Day After Tomorrow," though ridiculously exaggerated and not at all scientific, IS loosely based on a real theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation[^]. I think the idea is that global warming could potentially screw up the ocean currents, which would in turn screw up heat transfer from the equatorial regions toward the poles... Hot areas get hotter, cold areas get colder... Now, I have no idea how credible the theory is... I'm a programmer, not a meteorologist... But it's something to think about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
So would you have apply the same global rule to warming? ie, if GW is a fact, thenthe entire world has to warm? If thats the case then by your own rules GW isnt happening because Antartica and much of the southern hemisphere isnt warming. In fact its been getting colder for 50 years. So do you call it global warming or northern hemisphere warming?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effe
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. The more the better as far as plants, and those that depend on them are concerned. Secondly yes, we do produce other 'pollutants' SO2, NO2 and so on. These do affect the clmate (SO2 causes cooling). But, volcanoes also produce vast amounts of similarly acting products. A lot of the morality involved cones down to whether one thinks man, and thuis his actions are natural. After all, he is just an animal. All other animals and their actions are considered natural, no matter how damaging.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
ragnaroknrol wrote:
the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big.
We have added about 30% CO2 to the atmosphere.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
there is a reason to be alarmed.
And what have we seen in the last 100 years? Possibly some warming (depending on the validity of the data, and the accuracy of past thermometers. 0.5 degree C would be within the margin of error for old thermometers.) And the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The next 30% we add will have half the effect of the first.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change.
And that is an entirely different discussion to AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So would you have apply the same global rule to warming? ie, if GW is a fact, thenthe entire world has to warm? If thats the case then by your own rules GW isnt happening because Antartica and much of the southern hemisphere isnt warming. In fact its been getting colder for 50 years. So do you call it global warming or northern hemisphere warming?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, if the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing. What happens in one region doesn't matter in and of itself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effe
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. The more the better as far as plants, and those that depend on them are concerned. Secondly yes, we do produce other 'pollutants' SO2, NO2 and so on. These do affect the clmate (SO2 causes cooling). But, volcanoes also produce vast amounts of similarly acting products. A lot of the morality involved cones down to whether one thinks man, and thuis his actions are natural. After all, he is just an animal. All other animals and their actions are considered natural, no matter how damaging.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w[^] Morality has nothing to do with science. Anyway... Sure, CO2 is plant food. Oxygen is human "food", but too much can still kill us. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No, if the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing. What happens in one region doesn't matter in and of itself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)