PDA

View Full Version : Put your catalytic converter back on today save some ice tomorrow(long).



Timujin
01-29-2006, 08:00 AM
Warming debate shifts to ‘tipping point’
Some scientists worry it’s too late to reverse climate change

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

‘We've got to do something’
The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.

While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise.

The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever."

Small shift may key big changes
The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur.

"There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."

Scientists under scrutiny
This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen said senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly.

When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who did not want to be identified. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.

"They're trying to control what's getting out to the public," Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. "They're not willing to say much, because they've been pressured and they're afraid they'll get into trouble."

But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with scientists to ensure they are not misquoted.

"People could see it as a constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection."

John R. Christy, director of the Earth Science System Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said it is possible increased warming will be offset by other factors, such as increased cloudiness that would reflect more sunlight. "Whatever happens, we will adapt to it," Christy said.

Scientists who read the history of Earth's climate in ancient sediments, ice cores and fossils find clear signs that it has shifted abruptly in the past on a scale that could prove disastrous for modern society. Peter B. deMenocal, an associate professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said that about 8,200 years ago, a very sudden cooling shut down the Atlantic ocean conveyor belt. As a result, the land temperature in Greenland dropped more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade or two.

"It's not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years," deMenocal said. "The magnitude of what we're talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we've withstood in human history."

These kinds of concerns have spurred some governments to make major cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. Britain has slashed its emissions by 14 percent, compared with 1990 levels and aims to reduce them by 60 percent by 2050. Some European countries, however, are lagging well behind their targets under the international Kyoto climate treaty.

Speeding toward an iceburg?
David Warrilow, who heads science policy on climate change for Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that while the science remains unsettled, his government has decided to take a precautionary approach. He compared consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to the strategy of the Titanic's crew, who were unable to avoid an iceberg because they were speeding across the Atlantic in hopes of breaking a record.

"We know there are icebergs out there, but at the moment we're accelerating toward the tipping point," Warrilow said in an interview. "This is silly. We should be doing the opposite, slowing down whilst we build up our knowledge base."

The Bush administration espouses a different approach. Marburger said that while everyone agrees carbon dioxide emissions should decline, the United States prefers to promote cleaner technology rather than impose mandatory greenhouse gas limits. "The U.S. is the world leader in doing something on climate change because of its actions on changing technology," he said.

Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea.

"For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

What will this years hurricane season look like? It's not nice to fool with mother nature.

Tarmac02
01-29-2006, 09:57 AM
Apexi Super Catalyzer

http://gtmotorsports.co.nz/temp_images/apex_catalyst.jpg

You can find it for 600-1000, expensive but it breaks down emissions better than any OEM or high flow cat

rammsteinmatt
01-29-2006, 12:32 PM
30 years = 1F
cannot have 4F in 100 years..........

100/30 = 3.33333 = current temperature rise rate
3.33333 < 4 :uglystupid2:

also as we know over the last 30 years have gotten alot cleaner, factories are barely allowed to emit NOx emmissions, cars have to run with catylitic converters. therefore i am inclined to thing that there was greater pollution in 1975 than 2005. also as we know, oil reserves will most likely run out un this next century. no gas = no otto cycle vehicles = no COx and NOx emmisions from that otherwise large source.

i ask, what is the problem? to me it looks like they are blowing smoke. also i hope everyone realizes that the earth goes through documented heat cycles, at this point we should be heating up, then cooling off in the future.

chuckdashi
01-29-2006, 12:35 PM
O0

silvery_eagle
01-29-2006, 01:00 PM
the less renzo farts.....the better place...

Terry S
01-30-2006, 10:03 AM
Doesn't this belong in the political section so I can tear it to shreds?

Basically Matt said what I was going to say but he did so in a less devastating manner.. :D

Terry S

evolved
01-30-2006, 01:45 PM
you forget a couple key points.
There are many more 3rd world countries that have industries that are not governed by any emissions treaty. There are hundreds of companies that have moved the manufacturing sites to third world countries to capitolize on this.
this has to make some difference.

M5150
01-30-2006, 11:04 PM
Babies cry when they smell Renzo's ass

Timujin
02-13-2006, 11:30 PM
30 years = 1F
cannot have 4F in 100 years..........

100/30 = 3.33333 = current temperature rise rate
3.33333 < 4 :uglystupid2:

also as we know over the last 30 years have gotten alot cleaner, factories are barely allowed to emit NOx emmissions, cars have to run with catylitic converters. therefore i am inclined to thing that there was greater pollution in 1975 than 2005. also as we know, oil reserves will most likely run out un this next century. no gas = no otto cycle vehicles = no COx and NOx emmisions from that otherwise large source.

i ask, what is the problem? to me it looks like they are blowing smoke. also i hope everyone realizes that the earth goes through documented heat cycles, at this point we should be heating up, then cooling off in the future.


Just do your part and leave your cat on. Then get some vaginal pleasure and be happy!

You can also do whatever the hell you want and die anyway.

I had the pleasure of standing behind my friends catless G35 twin turbo and in about 4 seconds there was no oxygen in the area and my eyes began watering.

While your spankin it check this site http://www.worldwatch.org/ and post some of your wisdom.

All I'm saying is it's not nice to fool with mother nature.

Timujin
02-13-2006, 11:33 PM
Doesn't this belong in the political section so I can tear it to shreds?

Basically Matt said what I was going to say but he did so in a less devastating manner.. :D

Terry S


Yeah what he said. Tear it to shreds here "ripper"

Timujin
02-13-2006, 11:41 PM
you forget a couple key points.
There are many more 3rd world countries that have industries that are not governed by any emissions treaty. There are hundreds of companies that have moved the manufacturing sites to third world countries to capitolize on this.
this has to make some difference.


You said it. Other countries are going where we here in the US have been long ago. Hopefully they won't make the same mistakes, but there is alot of polution to come from other locations around the globe. You also have to factor in the reproductive rates of these countries.

drwn kix
02-14-2006, 11:41 AM
The world’s scientists, Scientific American, Science, Popular Science overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and a danger. Since absolute knowledge is almost nonexistent, listen to junk science naysayers. :idiot2:

You know that if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute you may not die. Several people have survived so why buy parachutes? :D

This whole logic dovetails nicely with the Bush anti-science anti-evolution agenda.

Who cares what the effect mercury has on humans when campaign contributors or pet lobbyists can make a little money.
Who cares that Bush promised to regulate CO2 before his first election and then went the opposite way.
Who cares that Bush promised to go forward with prosecutions of serious polluters and then dropped the suits and rolled back regulations. :uglystupid2:

Not enough people care, that is clear. Of course this wrong-headedness leads us into quagmires like Iraq for false reasons with no maintenance or exit strategy. It leads us into incredible corruption and the selling of our government to the highest bidder.

You want to fix FEMA. Put it back where it was before Bush.

Want less coal mine workers to die? Put the regulatory framework back where it was before Bush.

FRODO FAILED, BUSH HAS THE RING! :2funny:

REMEMBER IF YOU ARE ANTI EVOLUTION YOU ARE ANTI SOCALEVO. ;)

Terry S
02-14-2006, 11:44 AM
The world’s scientists, Scientific American, Science, Popular Science overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and a danger. Since absolute knowledge is almost nonexistent, listen to junk science naysayers. :idiot2:


Wrong. Incorrect. Misinterpreted.

Look, this isn't the political forum so i'm not going to make anymore posts in here.

Terry S

Blaze
02-14-2006, 11:45 AM
I put mine on yesterday...on the shelf in my garage.

drwn kix
02-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Actually I liked your original post and I have left on my catalytic. I wish those more efficient, larger ones were legal in California, I might go for one. My post was a response to rammsteinmatt.

4G63 FEVER
02-18-2006, 10:37 PM
The world’s scientists, Scientific American, Science, Popular Science overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and a danger. Since absolute knowledge is almost nonexistent, listen to junk science naysayers. :idiot2:

You know that if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute you may not die. Several people have survived so why buy parachutes? :D

This whole logic dovetails nicely with the Bush anti-science anti-evolution agenda.

Who cares what the effect mercury has on humans when campaign contributors or pet lobbyists can make a little money.
Who cares that Bush promised to regulate CO2 before his first election and then went the opposite way.
Who cares that Bush promised to go forward with prosecutions of serious polluters and then dropped the suits and rolled back regulations. :uglystupid2:

Not enough people care, that is clear. Of course this wrong-headedness leads us into quagmires like Iraq for false reasons with no maintenance or exit strategy. It leads us into incredible corruption and the selling of our government to the highest bidder.

You want to fix FEMA. Put it back where it was before Bush.

Want less coal mine workers to die? Put the regulatory framework back where it was before Bush.

FRODO FAILED, BUSH HAS THE RING! :2funny:

REMEMBER IF YOU ARE ANTI EVOLUTION YOU ARE ANTI SOCALEVO. ;)


So why don't you sell your Evo and get a Prius put your money where your mouth is nature boy. You were ok till you got on your lib rant. Back away from the bong and come back to reality.

drwn kix
02-20-2006, 01:29 PM
The world’s scientists, Scientific American, Science, Popular Science overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and a danger. Since absolute knowledge is almost nonexistent, listen to junk science naysayers. :idiot2:

You know that if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute you may not die. Several people have survived so why buy parachutes? :D

This whole logic dovetails nicely with the Bush anti-science anti-evolution agenda.

Who cares what the effect mercury has on humans when campaign contributors or pet lobbyists can make a little money.
Who cares that Bush promised to regulate CO2 before his first election and then went the opposite way.
Who cares that Bush promised to go forward with prosecutions of serious polluters and then dropped the suits and rolled back regulations. :uglystupid2:

Not enough people care, that is clear. Of course this wrong-headedness leads us into quagmires like Iraq for false reasons with no maintenance or exit strategy. It leads us into incredible corruption and the selling of our government to the highest bidder.

You want to fix FEMA. Put it back where it was before Bush.

Want less coal mine workers to die? Put the regulatory framework back where it was before Bush.

FRODO FAILED, BUSH HAS THE RING! :2funny:

REMEMBER IF YOU ARE ANTI EVOLUTION YOU ARE ANTI SOCALEVO. ;)


So why don't you sell your Evo and get a Prius put your money where your mouth is nature boy. You were ok till you got on your lib rant. Back away from the bong and come back to reality.


Don't have a bong. I do consider the "lib" a complement. Disprove a single point of my rant.

Terry S
02-21-2006, 10:04 AM
The world’s scientists, Scientific American, Science, Popular Science overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and a danger. Since absolute knowledge is almost nonexistent, listen to junk science naysayers. :idiot2:

Don't have a bong. I do consider the "lib" a complement. Disprove a single point of my rant.


The two science journals in bold are places for scientists to publish their studies. Just because a handful of morons get articles published doesn't mean the journal "overwhelmingly agree's" on something since they aren't publishing their oppinions.

Global warming theorists disprove themselves with "results" that fall within the margin of errors of their own studies.

Disproven.

Terry S

drwn kix
02-21-2006, 03:52 PM
:2funny:Typical neocon reply. It must be cool to know more than the leading scientists from the whole world. I really envy you and your profound education and argument skills. If you weren't so damned brilliant I would ask you for some evidence. :D

Blak94GSX
02-21-2006, 04:01 PM
Technically the catalytic converter produces MORE greenhouse emissions than without. The purpose of the catalytic converter is to convert SMOG producing emissions into greenhouse gases. The catalytic converter reduces the amount of Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide by producing more Carbon Dioxide which is considered by the global warming people to be the primary enemy.

Lastly, smog reduces global warming by reducing radiant heat from the sun (umbrella), but smog shortens the life of all breathing animals. So smog is a more immediate threat, and carbon dioxide causes global warming. Pick your poison...

badluckz
02-22-2006, 11:22 PM
or just read michael crichton's book "state of fear". very impressive amount of research (read bibliography at end) and a good story, too.

drwn kix
03-02-2006, 06:30 PM
or just read michael crichton's book "state of fear". very impressive amount of research (read bibliography at end) and a good story, too.


I read it.* Interestingly some of his "damning" evidence was cited by scientists I have read as evidence that global warming is real.* *Did anyone read the article from the Washington Post at the beginning?

By the way, Scientific American published an editorial on its back page a few months ago about the predisposition of the Bush administration to use psuedoscience to justify it's positions.

drwn kix
03-03-2006, 09:57 AM
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

The new findings, which are being published today in the journal Science, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially over the next several centuries.

It is one of a slew of scientific papers in recent weeks that have sought to gauge the impact of climate change on the world's oceans and lakes. Just last month two researchers reported that Greenland's glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, and a separate paper in Science today predicts that by the end of this century lakes and streams on one-fourth of the African continent could be drying up because of higher temperatures.

The new Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASA satellites called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), found that the amount of water pouring annually from the ice sheet into the ocean -- equivalent to the amount of water the United States uses in three months -- is causing global sea level to rise by 0.4 millimeters a year. The continent holds 90 percent of the world's ice, and the disappearance of even its smaller West Antarctic ice sheet could raise worldwide sea levels by an estimated 20 feet.

"The ice sheet is losing mass at a significant rate," said Isabella Velicogna, the study's lead author and a research scientist at Colorado University at Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "It's a good indicator of how the climate is changing. It tells us we have to pay attention."

Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.

But Alley called the study significant and "a bit surprising" because a major international scientific panel predicted five years ago that the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass this century as higher temperatures led to increased snowfall.

"It looks like the ice sheets are ahead of schedule" in terms of melting, Alley said. "That's a wake-up call. We better figure out what's going on."

Velicogna acknowledged that it is hard to predict how fast the ice sheet will melt in the future but said, "I don't expect it's going to stop in the next couple of years."

Scientists have been debating whether the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding or shrinking overall, because the center of the sheet tends to gain mass through snowfall whereas the coastal regions are more vulnerable to melting.

Velicogna and her co-author, University of Colorado at Boulder physics professor John Wahr, based their measurements on data from the two GRACE satellites that circle the world more than a dozen times a day at an altitude of 310 miles. The satellites measure variations in Earth's mass and gravitational pull: Increases or decreases in the Antarctic ice sheet's mass change the distance between the satellites as they fly over the region.

"The strength of GRACE is that we were able to assess the entire Antarctic region in one fell swoop to determine if it was gaining or losing mass," Wahr said.

But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise.

"The Antarctic is really a puzzle," said Taylor, who writes for the Web site TSCDaily, which is partly financed by fossil fuel companies that oppose curbs on greenhouse gases linked to climate change. "A lot more research is needed to understand the degree of climate and ice trends in and around the Antarctic."

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, two South African researchers are reporting today in Science that their computer models indicate that by 2100 climate change may rob the south and west of Africa and areas in the upper Nile region of a significant portion of their current water supply. Warming may reduce the rainfall needed to replenish up to 25 percent of Africa's surface water, said Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz at the University of Cape Town in Rondebosch, South Africa.

"Water is essential to human survival," they wrote, "and changes in its supply can potentially have devastating implications, particularly in Africa, where much of the population relies on local rivers for water."

Congressional Democrats, including Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) said yesterday that the two new papers show that the United States must act quickly to impose mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Bush administration opposes such curbs on the grounds that they could hurt the country's economy and has instead invested money on new technology to limit greenhouse emissions and further climate science research. :idiot2:

"Climate change is not just someone else's concern but a very real threat to the lives and livelihood of people across the globe," Kerry said.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Terry S
03-03-2006, 10:05 AM
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels
...snip...

In response to your article above, taken from: http://www.junkscience.com/

*******

Ooh! Bad headlines! Is Antarctica 'melting'? The definitive answer is 'No, not currently'.

How do we know this? Since 1979 we have had satellite coverage of the frozen continent and the UAH MSU data for the Southern Polar Region, displayed graphically here, shows a slight cooling trend of -0.01 °C/decade.

'Aha!' cry the hand-wringers, '"Unproven" satellite data must be wrong!'. Fair enough, ignoring the fact these headlines are generated from, ahem, just 3 years, 5 months satellite data, let's compare the MSU data with Goddard Institute of Space Studies (a.k.a. the "House of Hansen") data, displayed here. Their trend is different from that of the UAH MSU, indicating greater Antarctic cooling at -0.04 °C/decade for the period 1979-2005.

GHCN-ERSST plotted here for the region 66.33S - 90.00S over the same period gives a trend of -0.02 °C/decade.

The cooperative effort by the UK Met. Office's Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit dataset known as HadCRUT2v also provides regional splits and their data, shown here, for the Antarctic not including the peninsula protruding north of the Antarctic Circle, shows no trend (0.0 °C/decade) for the period 1979-2004 while the Antarctic Peninsula, here, shows an anomalous trend of +0.5 °C/decade. Their combined 65S - 90S (including part of the Southern Ocean), here, gives a trend of +0.1 °C/decade.

The Antarctic is not exactly over-serviced with historical temperature data and some extraordinary gyrations appear in what record we do have - probably as a result of measurement changes but possibly not. During the period of global cooling worry the Antarctic appears to have been warming although we cannot determine whether the changes around the 1950s are the result of some sort of phase shift or alterations in temperature recording and calculation. What we don't have is any indication of a warming trend within the Antarctic Circle during the period of allegedly alarming anthropogenic global warming (our so-called 'hottest decades' of the 'hottest century' for a millennium). And if the sub-zero south is not warming then it is not melting, is it?

Continental ice egress is not a smooth and steady procedure but seems to happen in fits and starts. Some of the reason for this is ice sheets adding significant resistance as they slowly grow out to sea until eventually stalling ice flow. Eventually tide and currents break off these extruded sheets, releasing back pressure and allowing temporary 'sprints' of ice streams to sea, slowly rebuilding the blocking sheets until the cycle repeats. Over the last decade we have seen ice shelves in several regions around Antarctica breaking back to levels last seen in the 1950s so if there is a net transient loss in progress no one would (or should) really be surprised.

What is perhaps more surprising is the number of distribution points utilised by NASA putting out their press release regarding just 3 years and 5 months data (April 2002 to August 2005), which is one reason the 'trend' confidence is ±50% - another is that 'corrections' of unknown efficacy have had to be applied to the signal in an attempt to use this technique to derive ice shield mass balance. What do you suppose would be the response if we used the same period of UAH MSU data to claim a global temperature 'trend'? For those who might be interested, under comparable trend guidelines as used by NASA above, the world is heading into a chill, with global cooling 'trend' of -0.013 °C/decade (can I get a place in Igloo Building 101?).

What an absurd beat up from almost non-extant data! Maybe NASA is getting in very early for April 1? And what an appalling media response with no one yet observed treating these claims with any degree of scepticism. Sheesh!

*****

Terry S

drwn kix
03-03-2006, 12:02 PM
I checked out junkscience. Seems appropriately named.
Is it funded by the executive department? :idiot2: