Guys, look at the latest chart from the Artic, specifically this year so far.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Yeah, we're not buying property under 5m above sea level.
All well and good but do you seriously think we could have a functioning world if ocean levels rose 3 metres in the next 30 years ? Your property might be physically safe but that could be about all.
Some bold claims being made on that climatechange centric (check their vision and mission statements if you do not believe me) website there ghotib. Did you happen to notice how they neglected to mention the potential for corruption of their "isotopic fingerprints" by cosmological factors?
Under Education and Outreach? As I said with the link, the material is pitched at high school students. Focussing on the major issues isn't neglect; it's good lesson planning and communication. Of course, NOAA's Earth System Research labs have the advantage over us because they have first hand knowledge of what's major, what's minor, and what the questions are.
NASA article. Not sure if NASA have reason to fake data, but I found this interesting:
Evidence of Arctic Warming
There's even a colour chart for Noco to admonish and play Perry Mason with
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php
Arctic warming is apparently happening.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...rth's-spin-axis-shifted-by-melting-ice-sheets
Hmmm. So some scientists have determined that the cart is now driving the horse instead of the other way around!
Apparently so, I was just on posting a Tisme post from another thread, personally I don't give a ratz.
But it did make the point that maybe, there is more at play, than cows farting.
No I didn't. Please point them out. But please also bear in mind that the article is not written for experts. If you want to dispute the results you would do better to go to the scientific literature, which will contain much more detail about methods, accuracy, and even the possible need to investigate flying elephants.The section claiming that mass spectroscopy of samples taken from the environment, could somehow discern the fossil fuel contributions to the CO2 within those samples via identification of changes in the ratio of the carbon isotopes.
Did you notice the logical flaws in their process and interpretations of the results?
If all trees have trunks, does that mean Dumbo the flying elephant is a tree?
No I didn't. Please point them out. But please also bear in mind that the article is not written for experts. If you want to dispute the results you would do better to go to the scientific literature, which will contain much more detail about methods, accuracy, and even the possible need to investigate flying elephants.
You'll have to say what you mean cynic. I think I know what you think you're saying, but it would be unfair of me to accuse you of anything on the basis of what you didn't say.Let me explain it another way. If all elephants have trunks, one might accurately state that Dumbo is an elephant, but does that mean that trees are elephants also?
Can you see how this misapplication of logic appears to have been employed in the use of measures of changed isotopic ratios?
Orr am I going to be accused of walking the Max Planck?
You'll have to say what you mean cynic. I think I know what you think you're saying, but it would be unfair of me to accuse you of anything on the basis of what you didn't say.
Facts or opinions , and inconvenient to whom?A few more inconvenient facts for those interested.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/jericho-climate-policy-silence/7424598
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/warning-on-tipping-point-for-east-antarctic-glacier/7425362
Facts or opinions , and inconvenient to whom?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?