|
Intergovernmental Cases
Cases in which the dependent child and noncustodial parent (NCP) live in different States, Tribes, Territories or Countries, or where two or more agencies or tribunals are involved in some case activity, such as enforcement. (Also called Interstate or Interjurisdictional Cases.)
Question: How many global warmings have occurred in the past? Unlike most apparently intractable problems, which have a tendency to go away when examined closely and analytically, the climate change predicament just seems to get bigger and scarier the more we learn about it.
Now we discover that not only are the oceans and the atmosphere conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms, floods and ever-climbing sea levels, but the crust beneath our feet seems likely to join in too.
Looking back to other periods in our planet's history when the climate was swinging about wildly, most notably during the last ice age, it appears that far more than the weather was affected. The solid earth also became restless, with an increase in volcanic activity, earthquakes, giant submarine landslides and tsunamis. At the rate climate change is accelerating, there is every prospect that we will see a similar response from the planet, heralding not just a warmer future but also a fiery one.
Several times in the past couple of million years the ice left its polar fastnesses
and headed towards the equator, covering much of the world's continents in ice sheets over a kilometre thick, and sucking water from the oceans in order to do so. As a consequence, at times when the ice was most dominant, global sea levels were as much as 130m lower than they are today; sufficient to expose land bridges between the UK and the continent and Alaska and Russia.
Each time the ice retreated, sea levels shot up again, sometimes at rates as high as several metres a century. In the mid 1990s, as part of a study funded by the European Union, we discovered that in the Mediterranean region there was a close correlation between how quickly sea levels went up and down during the last ice age and the level of explosive activity at volcanoes in Italy and Greece.
The link was most obvious following the retreat of the glaciers around 18,000 years ago, after which sea levels jumped back up to where they are today, triggering a 300% increase in explosive volcanic activity in the Mediterranean in doing so. Further evidence for a flurry of volcanic action at this time comes from cores extracted from deep within the Greenland ice sheet, which yield increased numbers of volcanic dust and sulphate layers from eruptions across the northern hemisphere, if not the entire planet.
Read the full content……
But how can rising sea levels cause volcanoes to erupt? The answer lies in the enormous mass of the water pouring into the ocean basins from the retreating ice sheets. The addition of over a hundred metres depth of water to the continental margins and marine island chains, where over 60% of the world's active volcanoes reside, seems to be sufficient to load and bend the underlying crust.
This in turn squeezes out any magma that happens to be hanging around waiting for an excuse to erupt. It may well be that a much smaller rise can trigger an eruption if a volcano is critically poised and ready to blow.
Eruptions of Pavlof volcano in Alaska, for example, tend to occur during the winter months when, for meteorological reasons, the regional sea level is barely 30cm (12in) higher than during the summer. If other volcanic systems are similarly sensitive then we could be faced with an escalating burst of volcanic activity as anthropogenic climate change drives sea levels ever upwards.
Notwithstanding the recent prediction by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels in 2100 will be a measly 18-59cm (7-23in) higher, Jim Hansen – eminent climate scientist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies – warns that we could see a one to two metre rise this century and several more in the next. Other climate scientists too, forecast substantially greater rises than the IPCC, whose prediction excludes any consideration of future changes in polar ice sheet behaviour. A worst-case scenario could see a return to conditions that prevailed around 14,000 years ago, when sea levels rose 13.5 metres (44ft) - the height of a three-storey house - in the space of about 300 years.
Such a dramatic rise in coming centuries would clearly spell catastrophe for our civilisation, with low-lying regions across the planet vanishing rapidly beneath the waves. Just a one metre (3.28ft) rise would threaten one third of the world's agricultural land, two metres (6.56ft) would make the Thames flood barrier redundant and four metres (13.12ft) would drown the city of Miami, leaving it 37 miles (60km) off the US coast.
As sea levels climb higher so a response from the world's volcanoes becomes ever more likely, and perhaps not just from volcanoes. Loading of the continental margins could activate faults, triggering increased numbers of earthquakes, which in turn could spawn giant submarine landslides. Such a scenario is believed to account for the gigantic Storegga Slide, which sloughed off the Norwegian coast around 8,000 years ago, sending a tsunami more than 20 metres (66ft) high in places across the Shetland Isles and onto the east coast of Scotland. Should Greenland be released from its icy carapace, the underlying crust will start to bob back up, causing earthquakes well capable of shaking off the huge piles of glacial sediment that have accumulated around its margins and sending tsunamis across the North Atlantic.
The Earth is responding as a single, integrated system to climate change driven by human activities. Global warming is not just a matter of warmer weather, more floods or stronger hurricanes, but is also a wake-up call to Terra Firma. It may be no coincidence that one outcome of increased volcanic activity is likely to be a period of falling temperatures, as a veil of volcanic dust and gas reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Maybe the Earth is trying to tell us something. It really would be worth listening before it is too late.
Answer: There have been countless warmings and coolings of the planet during it's existence.
Question: Why is there Intergovernmental Cooperation in Worldwide Implementation of ID Cards? Is it all just a HUGE coincidence that there is a Simultaneous introduction of biometric, smart ID cards around the world?
Or is it the case, that a huge network of "agents" in many Governments are all working towards a World Government and a Global population all micro chipped?
The reason I say this is because it does seem strange to me that so many Governments are implementing the same policies, at the same time.
Is it really all one huge coincidence?
1. The ID schemes and database projects are harmonised and conform to international standards, designed to be coordinated and interoperable. The smart ID cards being adopted by different nations worldwide are all on a common format: - ICAO 9303 part 3. This document available can viewed here:
www.hasbrouck.org/documents/ICAO9303-p…
2. Behind the ID project, the participating nations are also all adopting a common format for personal information on government databases. This is what ID cards are about - more than the physical cards themselves, they are an interface to access databases of personal information. Adopting a common format for cards implies adopting a common format for data systems and databases. Interoperability of systems and universal accessibility of data has been an explicit goal, not merely implicit. There is also a project to make your personal data available to all other governments, worldwide.
3. The adoption of these systems has been coordinated, by a government process, conferences, aid and support.
4. This policy is being projected worldwide by the European Union (EU) and the US. They have been the leading movers in promoting common format "smart" ID cards and databases.
5. It seems probable that Russia and the Eastern Bloc nations will also be joining the project - under the EU-Russia Common Spaces agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Un…
6. Smart ID cards will cover at least 90% of world population - perhaps over 95%. This figure is even higher than that in my earlier article, in Global Research. Only about 2.5% are definitely not going in with the common-format ID scheme (e.g. Burma, North Korea, Madagascar, etc). For about 8% of world population, I haven't been able to track down solid, reliable information, e.g. small countries such as Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, etc.
7. The aim of this process is to track population movement - migration of population. The system of immigration and border controls has evolved into worldwide system of monitoring population movement, to stop potential immigrants. The aim has progressed from stopping potential illegal immigrants at the borders of the EU or the US, into extended border controls, that stop migrants hundreds or thousands of miles before they reach the borders. This requires systems of population monitoring and surveillance, in "third nations." ID systems are part of this strategy.
Answer: Because separation is an illusion, everything being really one thing (energy) in disguise. Humanity is coming back together whether we like it or not. Besides, a United Earth is necessary for when the Vogons attack. They're circling Uranus now, it's just a matter of time. ;-)
Question: After Climategate does the IPCC now stand for The International Pack of Climate Crooks? Unquestionably the world's final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavours -- be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel's "expert" counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.
Simply stated, we've been swindled. We've been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their own pockets in the process.
Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem -- but rather, a solution.
For just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating text for the "last chance to save the planet" International Climate Accord [PDF], put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs outlining the payment of "climate debt" reparations by Western nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as it did emission reduction schemes.
What do you think the IPCC can and should do next?
Ops...I forgot to reference the link but no reason to shoot the messenger! Thanks to those of you that provided opinions on the article
Answer: Wow, even after they've been caught manipulating data, trashing the original data, making up alarmist stories. And even after their own former head has spoken against them there are people here who STILL believe and support them. It just defies belief , this agw crap seems to infect seemingly former intelligent people with a sickness of the brain and spirit.
It really truly has become a religion for some people, or maybe they are victims of some new government mind manipulation technique.
You may as well give up trying to talk sense to the warmers as they are quite literally sick, its their sheeplike dependence upon what they are told to think that makes the world the war, famined and economical mess that it is.
Warmers are the enemies of the world and human civilisation.
For the sake of the planet anyone involved with the ipcc should be shot as enemies of the world and freedom
Question: Summary of a science Article? I need a summary for this article!!! Im having trouble understanding it! Please help!
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Scientists think they have uncovered conclusive proof that human activity is responsible for rising temperatures in both polar regions.
Changes in polar temperatures are not consistent with natural climate changes say scientists.
Research carried out at the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) demonstrates for the first time that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for warming at the Arctic and Antarctic.
Previous studies have observed rises in temperature at both poles, but none, until now, have formally attributed the cause to human activity.
Using up-to-date gridded data sets, scientists led by the UEA observed mean land surface temperatures in the Arctic over a 100 year period. For the Antarctic the observation period was shorter -- 50 years -- as there is no station data available before 1945.
They then applied an average simulated response using two models. The first examined natural forcings -- events like solar cycles and volcanic activity which can affect temperatures.
The second model simulated natural combined with anthropogenic forcings -- which included greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and sulphate aerosol.
Scientists discovered that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone.
One of the report authors, Dr Alexey Karpechko told CNN: "In both cases the accelerations are not consistent with natural forcing, which means that natural forcing alone cannot produce such a warming. So in a sense, we can say conclusively that this [warming trend at the poles] is due to human influence."
The paper "Attribution of polar warming to human influence" is published in the science journal Nature Geoscience.
Don't Miss
Principal Voices: From landfill to landscape
Principal Voices: Climate changing 'faster, stronger, sooner'
Principal Voices: Earth, but not as we know it
The Antarctic data is of particular interest given that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 notes that anthropogenic climate change had been detected in every continent except Antarctica.
This new data appears to demonstrate that man-made warming is indeed happening on the continent as well.
The report may go some way towards silencing climate skeptics who point to evidence that most of Antarctica has been cooling for some time.
"There is strong warming in the Antarctic peninsula," Karpechko said. "But for several decades there has been a slight cooling of the rest of the continent. This slight cooling is due to circulation changes which are partly caused by ozone depletion.
"This is why there has been a bit of confusion as to what is happening in Antarctica. But we expect a recovery of the ozone layer in the future. We may also expect that the Antarctic warming trends will emerge more clearly."
Commenting on the study conducted by the UEA, Professor David Vaughan, a Glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey told CNN: "This is exactly the sort of study we need. The poles are extremely important in the climate change debate and the rapid warming in the Arctic is one of the icons."
Professor Vaughan, who is studying the patches of warming happening in Antarctica, concedes that the cooling that's occurred in the past 30 to 50 years is "a little perplexing". But he agrees with Dr Karpechko over the effects of the ozone hole.
"The likelihood is that over the next century the ozone hole will be substantially reduced," Professor Vaughan said, "And it may mean that the Antarctic warming becomes much more apparent in that period."
Climate modeling might not convince everyone that warming is taking place, but as Professor Vaughan points out: "Simulations are built around physical principles and an understanding of the physical world".
Climate modeling is a relatively new area of expertise but Professor Vaughan said that the UEA is widely recognized as one of the world leaders in this field.
As previous IPCC reports have pointed out, the effects of warming at the poles are already being felt by indigenous polar species and communities. This new report is confirmation of the culpability of humans in contributing to these rising temperatures.
"I'm afraid that there will always be people that don't believe that we are making all these changes," Dr Karpechko said.
"Some people are waiting for the science to say that a particular heat wave is caused by humans. But attributing specific effects to human activities is much more difficult than attributing global changes. I don't know if we should wait for that because it will be too late.
"I see from the data that there is warming. This is really frightening."
Answer: According to research conducted at the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA), humans are responsible for the climate change in the polar regions of the Earth.
They made two models to test this change, the first with only natural occurrences effecting the model, the second with natural and man-made forces , like green house gases, effecting the model.
The second model showed the most drastic climate change, proving their theory that humans are at least partly responsible for the warming.
The rest is just quotes and commentary, that's how articles are structured. From the most important fact to the unneeded details.
Question: How can you believe the IPCC claims on global warming? In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”, warning that there could be 9-10 degrees F more warming by 2100.
Yet, John Christy, former lead author for the IPCC, now states “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” and that the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
So, how can you believe anything the IPCC claims about global warming?
Answer: Because they told you that there's an "overwhelming consensus" of scientists that agree it's happening. The world is getting warmer! You have to believe us! Stake your economies on it and let the new world order fix it for you! We can do it, it'll only take 50% of your GDP in a massive wealth transfer to the dictatorial regimes in Africa and the middle east. Uh...don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!
What, you don't trust us?
Question: Since temperature records appear to be unreliable, will scientists re-think their positions on global warming? With the data providing the very backbone of the man-caused global warming argument appearing to be seriously flawed, is it time to clear the slate and start over? Is it time for certain scientists and 'spokespersons' to finally admit that the science of man-caused global warming is seriously flawed? Is it time to rein in some of the Billions of taxpayer dollars being doled out to study remedies for what appears to be a non-existent problem? Your opinion?
"World may not be warming, say scientists"
Jonathan Leake
February 14, 2010
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.
Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.
Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.
In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.
“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en…
Pegminer.... it is obvious that you have no clue as to copyright laws.
Answer: Probably not. Never forget that science has almost nothing to do with "Global Warming". "Global Warming" is political, not scientific.
Scientists working to advance an agenda put together scientific sounding babble to make it appear that there work was grounded in science. Fortunately, there were many good true scientific minds that saw this game and rejected the cause even though they had to endure years of being dismissed and having their funding cut for not accepting the motive.
The political movement will be hard to kill off. Soon you'll read posts that will say it doesn't matter if "Global Warming" is real or not, we still need to save the planet, blah, blah, blah, like accepting their faulty premise is the only way to save the planet.
Only with a change in the political leadership to a party or person who has the will to stand up to this foolery will the belief of man harming the environment change.
Question: APEC member nations will not accept greenhouse gas emission targets to fight global climate change? International Herald Tribune
APEC unlikely to accept binding gas targets in climate change fight: Australian minister
The Associated Press
Friday, August 17, 2007
CANBERRA, Australia: APEC member nations will not accept greenhouse gas emission targets to fight global climate change and creating energy-efficient economies is the way forward, Australia's environment minister said Saturday.
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum will focus on improving energy efficiency instead of setting specific gas emission reduction targets as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol did, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
"Most of the fast-growing industrializing economies, China being the classic case ... are not going to agree to binding targets on the basis of the Kyoto model," Turnbull said.
The comments came a day after the environmental group Greenpeace said it obtained a proposed draft declaration circulated by Australia among APEC member states ahead of September's annual meeting in Sydney.
The draft, viewed by The Associated Press on Friday, said Asia-Pacific governments have been asked to improve energy efficiency and increase forest cover throughout the region to stop climate change.
However, no mention was made of mandatory targets to cut the amount of heat-trapping gasses released by human activity into the atmosphere.
Greenpeace criticized the plan saying without binding limits, climate change will continue unchecked.
"Business needs certainty and setting targets that mean people generally need to do better just aren't going to happen," Greenpeace energy campaigner Ben Pearson said Saturday.
Turnbull said focusing on energy efficiency — such as redesigning buildings so they are less reliant on electric lighting and air conditioning — was the way forward.
"The battle against global warming occurs on many fronts," he said. "If you use 25 percent less energy to get the same amount of economic product, then you've naturally ... made a very significant decrease in the amount of CO2."
According to the draft, APEC would agree to "work toward the goal" of reducing energy intensity — the amount of energy used to create a gross domestic product — by 25 percent by 2030.
It also described an "aspirational goal" of expanding forest cover across the APEC region by 20 million hectares by 2020.
Pearson described the energy efficiency plan as "business as usual," saying improved efficiency is inevitable in a growing economy.
In May, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the U.N. network of more than 2,000 scientists — released its fourth report, warning that global warming would increase the number of extreme weather events and cause more natural disasters that will hit the poor hardest.
Global surface temperatures in January were the highest since records began, according to data compiled by the World Meteorological Organization.
Climate change will top the agenda at the annual APEC leaders' forum in Sydney in September.
Answer: it doesn't surprise me
Question: A LITTLE HELP PLEASE!? 3. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster had a global impact because
A. The radiation crossed national boundaries
B. The radiation stayed with the Soviet Union
C. The radiation was contained within Chernobyl
D. There was almost no radiation at all
7. Which of the following is not an example of international efforts to achieve collective security?
A. United Nations
B. Ohio National Guard
C. North Atlantic Treaty Organization
D. Organization of American States
11. Which of the following is an example of an exchange of cultural practices?
A. Americans eating French fries in fast food restaurants
B. The popularity of jazz music in the United States during the 20th century
C. Chinese acupuncture becoming popular in the United States
D. Americans playing board games such as Monopoly
12. Which of the following is an example of cultural exchanges in the world of music?
A. The popularity of the Rolling Stones in England
B. The popularity of Elvis Presley in the United States
C. The popularity of the Who in England
D. The popularity of the Beatles in the United States
16. Which of the following would not be a good example of an intergovernmental organization?
A. City Council
B. United Nations
C. World Bank
D. League of Nations
23. Which of the following would not have a direct effect on the environment?
A. Global warming
B. Acid rain
C. Beetles coming from another country
D. Doing homework
24. The best example of the spreading of religion would be
A. The President meeting with his cabinet
B. A speech about education at a teacher’s conference
C. A Supreme Court Case
D. Missionaries going to other countries to teach their beliefs
31. An example of outsourcing would be
A. Giving a shirt to a relative to sew
B. Selling wheat to the U.S.S.R
C. Having Japan make toys and sending them to the U.S.
D. Selling your bike at a flea market in another city
33. When economies of various nations are interconnected this is called what?
A. Assimilation
B. Globalization
C. Culturalization
D. Civilization
Please Help. This is such a huge assignment it has fifty questions. I have gone over the reading numerous times, and I still cant find these answers...
Answer: 3 A
7 B
11 D
12 D
16 A
23 D
24 D
31 C
33 B
Question: Title 18, USC 666 - need help deciphering this? § 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
How Current is This? (a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists—
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—
(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that—
(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and
(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.
(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.
(d) As used in this section—
(1) the term “agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term “government agency” means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a government or governments for the execution of a governmental or intergovernmental program;
(3) the term “local” means of or pertaining to a political subdivision within a State;
(4) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(5) the term “in any one-year period” means a continuous period that commences no earlier than twelve months before the commission of the offense or that ends no later than twelve months after the commission of the offense. Such period may include time both before and after the commission of the offense.
Answer: It would take me an hour to go through all that and put it is simpler words. Better to ask some specific question or only ask for 2 parts to be explained.
Question: Why NASA recognized Malaysia first spaceman as a spaceflight participant although he was trained as cosmonaut? As we known, cosmonaut and astronaut refer to the same meaning. In Malay both words mean 'Angkasawan'. Meanwhile, spaceflight participant usually refer to space tourist. In this case Dr. Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor trained by Russians (Roskosmos) as cosmonaut for 18 months and he will implement scientific research in ISS. However he is still recognizable as a spaceflight participant by NASA. What made him recognizable as a spaceflight participant?Just because because the government of Malaysia not yet involve in Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement?or, because Dr. Sheikh Muszaphar does not stay in ISS for 6 months like other Astronauts and Cosmonauts?Can anyone give the answer?
Answer: I'm no expert, but seriously?
Okay. Here is my two cents. Astronauts and Cosmonauts go through rigorous training for YEARS before they get the title. They learn how to pilot the spacecraft, how to handle malfunctions, and the basic engineering of the space craft. They work with the whole PROCESS of getting in space. Electronics, engines, wings and what not.
Our dear dear SMS is a doctor. All he did was undergo training for a year, probably learn only how to deal with zero gravity and life in Space. He was not educated on the complexity of space engineering and if there was a problem in space, he'd probably sit by the side and sip his Space made Teh Tarik and chew on his roti canai while the other 2 work it out.
Citizens in America who want to travel in space as normal tourists go through the exact same training as our dear SMS went through. So tell me again, what is your question?
Why is he not called an Astronaut? Because he damn well is NOT an astronaut. He's an embarrassment to the country. Who in the right mind says he wants to go into space and make Teh Tarik? Stupid.
10 points please.
Question: who can help me about my translation? UN panel gives dire warming forecast
VALENCIA, Spain - Global warming is "unequivocal" and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world's top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.
"Only urgent, global action will do," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling on the United States and China — the world's two biggest polluters — to do more to slow global climate change.
"I look forward to seeing the U.S. and China playing a more constructive role," Ban told reporters. "Both countries can lead in their own way."
Ban, however, advised against assigning blame.
Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," he said, and the effects are "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together. We must work together."
According to the U.N. panel of scientists, whose latest report is a synthesis of three previous ones, enough carbon dioxide already has built up that it imperils islands, coastlines and a fifth to two-thirds of the world's species.
As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, according to the report.
Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, says the report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore this year.
The panel portrays the Earth hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace and warns of inevitable human suffering. It says emissions of carbon, mainly from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that.
In the best-case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period, or about 1850.
"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," the panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.
Climate change is here, they said, as witnessed by melting snow and glaciers, higher average temperatures and rising sea levels. If unchecked, global warming will spread hunger and disease, put further stress on water resources, cause fiercer storms and more frequent droughts, and could drive up to 70 percent of plant and animal species to extinction, according to the panel's report.
The report was adopted after five days of sometimes tense negotiations among 140 national delegations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes — and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.
"The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," Ban said, looking ahead to an important climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, next month. "I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."
The report is intended to both set the stage and serve as a guide for the conference, at which world leaders will begin discussing a global climate change treaty to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
That treaty, which expires in 2012, required industrial nations to reduce greenhouse gases and a smooth transition to a new treaty is needed to avoid upsetting the fledgling carbon markets.
"This report will have an incredible political impact," Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official, told The Associated Press. "It's a signal that politicians cannot afford to ignore."
The United States opted out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing that the science was unproven and that the burden of mandatory emission cuts was unfair since it excluded fast-growing China and India. Chief U.S. delegate Sharon Hays said doubts have been dispelled. "What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call late Friday. She did not indicate that Washington would abandon its policy of voluntary emission cuts. China and India have said any measures impinging on their development and efforts to lift their people from poverty were unacceptable — a point likely to be heeded at the Bali talks. The report offered dozens of measures for avoiding the worst catastrophes if taken together — at a cost of less than 0.12 percent of the global economy annually until 2050. They ranged from switching to nuclear and gas-fired power stations, developing hybrid cars, using more efficient electrical appliances and managing cropland to store more carbon. Ban said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries develop clean energy resources, adapt to climate conditions and give them the technology to help themselves. He said he witnessed the devastation of climate change in disappearing glaciers of Antarctica, the deforested Amazon and under the ozone hole in Chile. "These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie," said Ban. "But they are even more terrifying because they are rea
联合国专题小组提出可怕的升温预测
西班牙 瓦伦西亚 全球温室效应越来越严重以及大气中的二氧化碳气体已经导致全球海平面最终上升到4.6…
唯有全球紧急行动,才能解决问题。联合国正部长Ban Ki-Moon呼吁美国和中国--世界的两大污染大国--要做出更大的努力来减缓全球…
我希望看到美国和中国在该组织中扮演一个更为重要的角色,Ban告诉记者,两个国…
然而他又反对太过于追究责任。
气候的变化使我们地球上宝贵的资源陷于危险当中,Ban说,温室效应的危害如此的…
联合国科学家专门小组的最新的综合报告包括前面提到的三方面的内容,报告所说,过…
最早在2020年,7500万到2.5亿的非洲人将会遭受到旱灾,亚洲的各大城市…
今年与al gore同等享有若贝尔奖的关于气候变化的国际研究报告所诉,欧洲会预期有大范围的物…
报告说,在最好的局面下,,温度还是会因大气中的碳而继续升高,即使从今天开始关…
我们已经对世界造成海平面上升的危害,专门小组的主席说。 如果格林兰的冰层融化,科学家说,他们将无法预测海平面将上升多少英尺,淹没多少海岸…
如果气候变化未受到抑制,由于强烈的暴风雨以及更为频繁的干燥,全球变温将会扩散…
“世界科学家们的意识已经达成一致”本说,我们将在希望下个月在印度尼西亚的巴厘…
这份报告准备设立一个讨论范围并以此作为气候会议的向导,在此会议上各国首脑讲开…
此协议,有效期至2012年,要求各个工业化国家减少温室气体的排放,并且为了阻…
这份报告将有着难以置信的政策影响。yvo de Boer,联合国高级气候变化官员,告诉美联社,这是一个政治家们不得不顾虑的信号。
美国在2001年否决了《京度议定书》。美国辩解说,既然该报告中负责任的国家排… 美国代表sharon Hays态度明确的说。
“自从2001年以来的改变是合乎情理的事情。” 她在之后的星期五的电话会议补充道。但她并没有提到华盛顿将放弃自由排放的政策。中国…
如果共同采取行动,联合国以每年减少0.12%的世界经济的代价来治理气候问题,…
Answer: Now there is an Ozone hole in Chile! Yikes!!
Question: Should Michael "Hockey-Stick" Mann be forced to return Economic Stimulus Funds to the U.S. Taxpayers? For Release: January 14, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or [email protected]
“Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist”
Funds Should be Returned to U.S. Treasury, Says National Center for Public Policy Research
Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.
"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.
Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming.
"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a full-time fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.
"Mann's credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as 'Obama money'," added Deneen Borelli.
Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research. Mann's so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming. Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long time period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years.
Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate periods of time such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation. The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph.
"It's shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenets of science - a dispassionate search for the truth," said Tom Borelli.
The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Michael…
Baccheus... do your homework.
NSF simply administers (awards) for the government. Check out the government's 'transparency' website:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Rec…
This will take you right to the specific grant awarded via economic stimulus monies (taxpayer money).
Paul B...... Baccheus got 'thumbs-down' because he did not state the actual facts/situation.
Answer: Love it. Even if you could stimulate the economy through printing and spending money (which you can't), spending it on "research" dedicated to proving a case for raising further barriers to production isn't "stimulus."
Question: Blogging on global warming - useful or petty and vindictive? There's an interesting piece ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/sc… ) on blogging on controversial scientific subjects in The Times today, announcing that Richard Dawkins is discontinuing the comments section of his blog, following threatening and abusive remarks.
The article discusses similar issues with blogging on global warming noting: [quote]
--------------------------------------
""Professor Roger Pielke of Colorado University is an expert on extreme weather and disaster impacts. He was an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change but disagreed with how his work was represented in its last report, which he blogged about. Fierce abuse ensued, with some coming from academics masquerading behind pseudonyms. When one appeared to threaten Pielke’s children, he tracked the blogger down and found he was a professor.
Pielke has been stung by the non-academics, too. He describes on his blog the “giant fish” of the public intellectuals in the blogosphere pond, then the “big fish” who feed them and the unqualified “minnows” — the amateurs — and the way they interact in the blogosphere: “To more effectively attack someone’s reputation they ... rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to ‘trash’ someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation. Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers like Tim Lambert, who are professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates (certainly the case with respect to my own work), yet earn their place exclusively by making mountains out of molehills.”
Lambert, 50, is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales who spends up to six hours a day blogging on climate change. He supports Mann’s hockey-stick model and has posted tirades against bloggers and science journalists, including Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times environment editor. Lambert acknowledges that the facelessness of blogging can encourage more personalised attacks. “If you’re writing something on a computer and you’re not face to face with someone, it’s quite a different way of communicating,” he says. “Someone might be more inclined to be aggressive.”"
--------------------------------------…
On the other hand, the article notes, bloggers do raise the profile of important issues, keep them alive and in the public eye, and have often found important errors in the areas they blog on.
Do you think that blogging - on both sides of the global warming debate - is useful, or does it generally descend to the petty and vindictive?
PS -
I recommend reading the article for anyone with an interest in the debate.
.
EDIT @ MTRStudent -
Thanks for your response. Are you aware, though, that the author of the blog you link to is the person criticised by the climate scientist quoted in the article for aggressive language and nit-picking by someone who is not qualified to speak about the area he blogs on?
Answer: It is instructive that it is a professor that is attacking him, apparently for not getting on the alarmist bandwagon. It sounds like one of Mann's buddies. The professor apparently even thinks that humans are influencing the climate but has a problem with lies that come out of the IPCC and contrived studies like Michael Mann's hockey stick. He hates being called a skeptic so he doesn't have much courage of his convictions but apparently he is at least fundamentally honest. He just thinks that what the IPCC and others are doing is sensationalizing. He seems rather naive to not realize that is enough to make him a denier and certainly a skeptic. That is all it takes to be an enemy of those people. If you haven't read the emails from Jones and Mann and it is long and tedious at times, you would learn that Mann can't tolerate anybody who questions his idiot contrived theory at all. It is more interesting than some novels out there. Those guys are drama queens.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images…
Mann goes after them to make sure they can't publish and they are blackballed.
It isn't too surprising considering the number of radical leftists that are masquerading as scientists. There are very interesting science articles on the skeptical side like whatsupwiththat.com (sp) and a few others. Sites like realclimate were put together to support Mann's idiotic hockey stick. That isn't science and I don't see the particular benefit to anyone to be subjected to propaganda. There might be some interesting stuff mixed in but I have a particular dislike for people purposely spinning the truth to fit whatever agenda.
Question: how many ways does cook county love me,,,let me count the ways?????? sam spade
You have posted content to Yahoo! Answers in violation of our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. As a result, your content has been deleted. Community Guidelines help to keep Yahoo! Answers a safe and useful community, so we appreciate your consideration of its rules.
Question: I never really ever showed up for work in my government jobs. Am I qualified to be Commander in Chief?
Deleted Answer: Salary Range Below $30,000.00 $30,000.00 - $35,000.00 $35,000.00 - $40,000.00 $40,000.00 - $45,000.00 $45,000.00 - $50,000.00 $50,000.00 - $55,000.00 $55,000.00 - $60,000.00 $60,000.00 - $65,000.00 $65,000.00 - $70,000.00 $70,000.00 - $80,000.00 $80,000.00 - $90,000.00 $90,000.00 - $100,000.00 $100,000.00 - $110,000.00 $110,000.00 - $120,000.00 $120,000.00 - $130,000.00 $130,000.00 - $140,000.00 $140,000.00 - $150,000.00 $150,000.00 - $175,000.00 $175,000.00 - $200,000.00 $200,000.00 - $225,000.00 $225,000.00 - $250,000.00 $250,000.00 - $300,000.00 $300,000.00 - $350,000.00 $350,000.00 - $400,000.00 $400,000.00 - $450,000.00 $450,000.00 - $500,000.00 Departments Administrative Hearing Board Adult Probation Dept. Ambulatory/Community Hlth Ntwk Animal Control Department AP Mental Health Board of Review BOH Services CORE Center Brd of Elec Comm-Election Fund Budget & Management Services Building & Zoning Bureau of Health Capital Planning and Policy CC Lead Poisoning Prevention CC Suburban TB Sanitarium Dist CCC Child Support Enforcement CCH Black Lung Grant CCH Family Planning CCH Hemophilia Central Services Cermak Health Services Chief Judge Juvenile Justice CHS HIV Aids Foundation Circuit Court Automation Fund Circuit Cout Administrative Fd Circuit Crt. Doc. Storage Fund Civil Service Commission CJ Access and Visitation CJ Expedited Child Support CJ Juv. Detention Initiative CJ Violence Prevention Clerk of Crct Crt Off.of Clerk Clerk/1st Municipal Dstr-Civil Clerk/Cnty-Wide Operations Bur Clerk/Criminal Bureau Clerk/Family Law Bureau Clerk/Suburban Operations Bur Comm Super./Intervention Commision on Human Rights Community Services Contract Compliance County Assessor County Auditor County Clerk County Clerk Automation County Clerk Election Div.Fund County Comptroller County Highway Department County Law Library County Purchasing Agent County Recorder Doc. Strg. Fnd County Treasurer Court Services Division Custodian Depart. of Enviromental Ctrl Department of Corrections Department of Human Resources Department of MIS Department of Public Health Dept. of Admin/Support Ser Dept. of Facilities/Mgmt Dept. of Office Tech. EC Air Pollution EC Air Pollution Particulate Emergency Management Agency Forensic Clinical Services Geographical Info System - GIS Health Services - JTDC Impact Incarceration Intergovernmental Agrmnt/ETSB JAC Family Justice Improvement JAC Homeland Security JAC IL Dept. of Corrections JAC Project Reclaim Judicial Advisory Council Judiciary Juvenile Probation Juvenile Temp Detention-JTDC Medical Examiner MFT Illinois First (Ist) Oak Forest Hospital Off of the Chief Fncl Officer Office of Chief Admin. Officer Office of Chief Info. Officer Office of Inspector General Office of the Chief Judge Office of the County Comm. Office of the President Office of the Sheriff P&D Community Development P&D Home Investment Part. P&D South Suburban Tax Project PH Bioterrorism Preparedness PH Breast and Cervical Cancer PH Cities Readiness PH Health Promotion PH IDPH Health Services PH IDPH Virus Response PH IL Dept of Human Services PH IL Tobacco-Free Communities PH Immunization Initiative PH Regional HIV Prevention PH Sex Transmitted Diseases PH Syphilis Elimination Planning & Development POET Administrative Cost Pool Police Department Provident Hospital Public Administrator Public Defender Public Guardian Recorder of Deeds Revenue Risk Management SA Appellate Assistance Progra SA Capital Litigation Trust Fd SA CDBG Demolition SA Child Support Enforcement SA Cold Case Homicide Unit SA Complex Drug Prosecutions SA D.V. Violence Chgo Response SA DNA Training/Prosecution SA Homicide Advocacy Serv. SA Juv. Court Victim Asst. SA Motor Vehicle Theft Pros. SA Project Safe Neighborhood SA Prosecution Based Victim SA Prosecutor Based Victim Ast SA Serv. Cook County Victims SA South Suburban Auto Theft SA Victim Assistance TAC SA Victim Asstance Serv. SA Victim Sensitive Interview SH Regional Perinatal SHE Chicago HIDTA SHE Child Support Enforcement SHE Post Release Reintegration SHE Substance Abuse Prev. Sheriff Women's Justice Serv Sheriff's Merit Board Social Casework Services St Atty Narcotics Forfeiture State's Attorney Stroger Hospital of Cook Cnty Supportive Services Treasurer Tax Sales Automation Veterans Assistance Commission Zoning Board of Appeals Welcome to CookEmployees.com Hosted by Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica Cook County taxpayers fund 25,000+ employees... lots good, some bad, to be sure. Cook County has long had problems with illegal hiring and patronage. In fact, the county is cur
Answer: yes, seems like alot of muble jumble,,,,,,so, you are qualified.....
Question: What do scientists agree has already begun, was caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries? In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it has begun, is 90% likely caused by man burning fossil fuels, and will be unstoppable for centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_…
What are they agreeing on?
Are they saying that global warming is definitely real?
If that is the case, why do some people still swear it is not?
Do those people think they know better then the scientific community?
Do those people also think the world is flat?
Advancing - Signing a petition does not make you a scientist.
Try again.
Question 212 - Correct. Not every single scientist agrees. But most do!
Max Power - Of course. It was common perception. But they were also the ones who convinced the church that it was not.
You guys appear to be incapable of critical thought.
Answer: global warming
Question: The Earth has a "Fever" Is there a cure? The symptoms are showing - the temperature is rising. A case in point is the Alaskan Village Newtok, located in the subarctic. The once frozen subsoil-known as permafrost-on which Newtok is built is melting. "I don't want to live in permafrost [anymore]," lamented a resident named Frank. "It's too muddy." Studies say that within ten years, this coastal village could be washed away.
The "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Rising global temperatures testify to this fact. What scientists call climate change has resulted in extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and hurricanes worldwide. What will happen to our planet? Is there a cure?
Answer: Mother nature will find her own cure, though it doesnt bode well for humans. The Earth will recover, once humans have been mostly extinguished, either through war, over-population, disease, or even a good old meteorite collision. It's not all bad. Humans just have to accept that they are as much slaves to mother nature's whims as the rest of Gods creations. It's all part of the natural order of things.
Question: Who can spot the fallacy in Richard Lindzen's reasoning here? (from http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=…
"Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."
There's quite a whopper of an error in the above statement, an error that should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of Earth/physical science. Can anyone here spot the problem and explain what it is?
I'm going to ask "Dana1981", "Paul", and "Dawei" to hold off here -- I'm sure that they know the answer and I don't want them to spill the beans too soon. ;) ;)
Just saving "conservative's" words for posterity:
"What''s your problem with it? We're dying to hear you make a fool of yourself.
"I'm going to ask "Dana1981", "Paul", and "Dawei" to hold off here "
I can't wait to hear the Three Stooges answer."
Edited to add:
This is a question that I'd like the "skeptics" to take a shot at. It will probably require a bit of homework on their part, but that is the reason that I posted this question -- to try to get the skeptics here to do their homework.
Edited to add:
Is "conservative" ashamed of his posts here? It would appear to be so. If you check out his profile, you'll see that he has his "questions" and "answers" marked private. This is in marked contrast to the Dana1981, Paul, and Dawei (who "conservative" derisively calls the "3 Stooges"), who have not tried to cover their tracks. So "conservative"... ...if the "3 Stooges" are unafraid to allow public scrutiny of their posts here, what are you afraid of?
Time to wrap this up, I guess...
Lindzen has conflated relative humidity with absolute humidity here. Absolute humidity is defined as the mass of water vapor in a given volume of air. Relative humidity is the *ratio* of the absolute humidity to the maximum amount (mass) of water vapor that a given volume of air can hold.
As the air temperature increases, the amount of water vapor that it can hold increases. So as the temperature rises, you can have an *increase* in absolute humidity accompanied by a *decrease* in relative humidity.
Increase the absolute humidity in the atmosphere and you increase the water-vapor amplification of CO2-forced warming. Decrease the relative humidity and you increase evaporation rates.
Increase the temperature and you can get *both*.
The grades so far:
Conservative: F (rude and stupid post)
Bravozulu: Gentleman's D- (A swing and a miss.)
Peter J: F (wrong and content-free)
James E: Get published in a professional journal and we'll talk.
Answer: Lindzens remarks are accurate as far as they go, but you did not get the entire thought being expressed through your short quoting him. The complete explanation requires understanding that heat and humidity on their own will not generate a sustainable high intensity storm system and this is what he was pointing out. You need high level cold dry air in combination with low level turbulence to achieve this. The below link leads to a decent but not great explanation of how storm systems form and operate.
http://www.weatheranswer.com/public/Thun…
But then I gave up years ago expecting decent understanding of science from anyone that will accept any part of the AGW myth as real and possible. I have over the last year redone all of the experiments quoted as evidence that co2 instead of water vapor causes the greenhouse effect and in every case I have discovered that none of those experiments were valid because they first did not include a hygrometer in the instrumentation and second they did not dehydrate their samples to level the playing field to get scientifically accurate results.
I did instrument correctly and discovered that the procedure quoted automatically hydrates the samples to the maximum the sample will support and that during the cool down part of the experiment moisture condensed out of the sample to the point it was running down the sides of the sample jar. So the much vaunted proof that co2 is a greenhouse gas is a complete farce created through one of the worst examples of unscientific sloppiness I have ever seen in my life. Added experiments with co2 obtained without the use of water and with both air and co2 samples at less than 10% relative humidity the co2 sample was less capable of greenhouse effect performance than the control air sample.
So any and all experiments quoted as evidence that co2 is a greenhouse gas are scientifically false and thus invalid because they were not performed through proper scientific method that would have found and corrected the errors in procedure. That clown who first made this error should have all of his awards stripped from him and the world informed of this fraud.
Question: Should the scandal-ridden IPCC be revamped or..... removed? Given the lack of credibility that the IPCC has, can the organization be effective?
"Prof. blasts climate panel"
By Richard Foot, Canwest News Service January 27, 2010
A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.
"There's been some dangerous crossing of that line," said Weaver Tuesday, echoing the published sentiments of other top climate scientists in the U.S. and Europe this week.
"Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates," he said. "I think that is a very legitimate question."
"The problem we have is that the IPCC process has taken on a life of its own," said Weaver, a climate-modelling physicist who co-authored chapters in the past three IPCC reports. "I think the IPCC needs a fundamental shift."
Weaver's comments follow a series of recent revelations about the scientific credibility of the IPCC's work.
The panel admitted last week that its 2007 report wrongly asserted that Himalayan glaciers likely would melt by 2035. That alarming claim created concern across southern and eastern Asia, whose major rivers are fed by the glaciers.
While the content of IPCC reports is supposed to be rigorously checked by a scientific, peer-review system, those rules weren't followed in this case. The glacier-melting claim was kept in the report even though some glacier experts considered it preposterous.
The claim originated with an Indian glaciologist who works for a research company in India headed by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman. British newspaper reports say Pachauri's company used the false glacier claim to win multimillion-dollar research grants.
The scientist responsible for the Asia chapter in the IPCC report also told a British paper he included the glacier claim for political purposes.
"We thought," said IPCC author Murari Lal, according to The Mail on Sunday, "that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Pr…
Answer: The IPCC has made it's function irrelevant. It should be shut down as one of the bodies of the UN. It was political to begin with and we can expect nothing more from them.
Question: Why would ANYONE trust the IPCC's Global Warming forecast? Is it a case of Garbage in/garbage out? "In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
...
"But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin…
First it was Michael Mann's FAKED Hockey Stick graph, where ANY data put into his equations generated a hockey stick shaped graph... BUSTED
http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.co…
THEN, it was Climategate, where our old friend Michael "Hid the [decade long] decline" in global temps, data was fudged, hidden or ignored, and FOIA actions were subverted by Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGK…
Oh, BTW, did you know that Mann received $500,000 in Porkulus funding? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
THEN, NASA had to recant on its "1998 is the hottest year" due to data "errors"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2…
http://samanoontheissues.blogspot.com/20…
THEN, The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/30/ga…
Why would ANYONE believe a "scientific" organization that is demonstrably UNtrustworthy?
Can you imagine the temper tantrums that would be thrown by the libs if this was a conservative think tank making these mistakes?
...
Answer: Liberals are willing to believe the garbage that flows out of BO's mouth. It comes as no surprise they are willing to believe the garbage about Global Warming.
Intergovernmental Cases Related Products and News
|
|
|
|
|