Sunday 23rd of November 2014

I stand corrected...

philosophical bugs...

When studying global warming in depth, one has to make allowances for uncertainty, fluctuations and elasticity. One has to always question whether one is right or wrong... 


On the other side of the ledger, the denialists don't have much to do to stir the possum — "they are right" they say with unshakeable belief and this is all there is to it: "Global warming is crap", "it's not happening" or "it's not due to humans burning fossil fuel"... Piece of cake, because it's easy to promote these concepts without having to show any proofs — though these idiots sometimes present carefully picked slanted argument to demonstrate they know a bit of something... 
     Overall, the denialists' pseudo-scientific arguments and analysis NEVER stack up against proper scientific scrutiny. But the damage is done. 
     They have achieve the mission: disrupt proper science... For all will know, science is uncertain in the "certainty" of its own theories, because that's the way science works.  This uncertainty demands the questioning of most sciences — especially in the domain of quantum physics, because the whole theory is based on weird contradictions, probabilities, exclusions, superimposition and elements being in two places at once, but the whole lot, including chemistry, works. 
    The denialists have powerful friends, especially us, because let's face it, we're moronic as far as cutting our usage of fossil fuels... We like carbon. We've been raised on carbon. We're addicted to it — far more than to meth or booze... This is why we need to do something to beat this addiction.
    The media, led by the denialist Mr Murdoch — that media baron who swallows as many information channels as he can around the world to turn them into his personal disinformation media outlets — does not want you to understand scientific reality, nor about this precise uncertainty. 
    And let's face it, apart from Australia having beaten many temperature records last year, we're not frying... and "global warming seems to have decelerated" — a present trend used by sceptics to claim that global warming is now reversing and we can burn all the carbon we want, because it won't change things anymore... and the earth is cooling... 
    All crap.

So, in this idiotic denialist spirit, the merde-och Australian pushed a few days ago the singular opinion of a few deliberately ignorant people, including a learned woman who accuses the BoM (Australian Bureau of meteorology) from fiddling with its temperature recording devices in global warming theory's favour... 
     This my dear friends we must say bollocks to, but then again it takes time to explain to morons that two multiplied by two equals four, as long as you stay within the parameters of ordinary mathematics. There are some mathematics systems such as matrices (and others systems) that, should you switch the first and second factor in this case, 2 and 2), the result will be different... ah forget it, this for another day...
     Scientific analysis is not easy though, especially in large systems. And as I have said before, should we be able to recognise global warming from our own senses, we'd be cooked within five years.
In complex systems, fluctuations of factors, compound and elasticity of material, such as air in the atmosphere, "concrete" observable markers will be things like melting of glaciers, rising of oceans, warming of oceans right through to the deep... and variation of water vapour concentrations, up there above. 
    So we need to scientifically precisely monitor the state of water vapour in the atmosphere around the globe, the atmospheric pressure, the shifting of climatic bands, the jet streams variations, the gaseous mix, and note the variations very carefully — daily, hourly, by the minute. As well we need to monitor temperatures along all gradients of the atmosphere to about 20,000 metres up, in as many locations as possible and keep a close eye on the acidification of the oceans... and the behaviour of plants. The earlier flowering of plants tell us that "climate is changing" on a big scale.
    Moving a temperature measuring box in Bourke is not going to change the overall result of millions other precise instruments observations that much, if allowance are made for corrections — which are thus made by the BoM for the Bourke box. There are definite environmental status for the "boxes" and these need to be respected. But some changes in the surroundings, like the construction of a building nearby, can affect the results. For example I know that the shade in my backyard is often two degrees warmer that the shady side of the house, when the sun is shinning, but not all the time. This difference also depends on the wind and the season... 
    Monitoring planet earth in my back-yard is simple, but it's a massive task on a global scale, despite this planet being a little speck of dust in a large expanding universe... 
    The counter-argument here is always about cash: the massive profits than the carbon industry still wants to make beyond tomorrow as the planet heats up... Planet earth actually is now planet Cash. Cash rules. Money rules. Economic values, whatever they are, rule well above all else. Bugger nature... and bugger sciences and mathematics as well, apart from counting cash in scrooges' coffers and use science to make useless gadgets for profit. 
    Money is what humans have decided for now and the future. The dorks in Canberra are true to form on this very limited view. Cash rules their affairs and the more cash one has, the more one is deemed "successful". All the rest is viewed as entertaining gap-filler or as simply failure... and zoos can take care of the wildlife... 
    Our modern societies are built around money, not around the value of stupid orang utans swinging from useless tree to useless tree... Palm trees are profitable. Understanding and protecting natural processes is a huge hindrance to making cash. Making cash in itself is hard work, so why make it harder by being considerate about nature, which god gave us to plunder? It's in the bible, isn't it? Yes. Greed rules. And we're all in it... Even the bludgers are not immune to this mentality. Most moves we make destroy nature even if we sit at a desk crunching numbers.
    Thus I stand corrected... I consume too much carbon despite trying hard to be "extra carbon neutral". So what are we to do? What am I going to do? I am looking for guidance, but will get none, zero, nada, nothing, niet from the stupid Abbott regime. All I get is hypocritical crap and dangerous ideas that are more dangerous than those at the festival of dangerous ideas, in Sydney. Abbott and his giant gnomes are dangerous idiots of the first kind. They do not understand science, because they DON'T WANT TO — but, place a bible in front of then, and their half-wit brain goes into raptures... The sad case here is that THEY DO NOT even read or understand the bible. Like science they only pick the bits that suit the narrow focus of their tight arse. By all account, the bible is full of contradictions, sanctified bigamy, approved prostitution and authorised gratuitous violence. But for them, the neo-fascist conservatives, they only pick the roses in a fabulous book, full of nasty triffids. 
    They are simply wrong. Badly wrong. 

But are we right in claiming that global warming is happening?
    Yes and YES! Global warming is happening and faster than we are scientifically calculating because we're too cautious. Predicting Armageddon is not what we should do anyway. 
    Recently, Sydney has been swamped with so much rain, it's likely that the rain record for August will be broken. increasing humidity is a sign of a warming atmosphere and we should know that there are big changes a-coming from the upper atmosphere down... But then, uncertainty might give us the wrong picture. We might get cooked tomorrow. Not quite, but warmer it's getting.
    So rather than burning more easy carbon, we need to reduce our carbon footprint fast. FAST ! But there is not much we can do when politics enter the fray... 
    The warming signs are still there, despite idiotic dicky views from people like Dick Warburton... People like Dick Warburton are "in charge" because they have been "successful with money", despite being very short of scientific understandings. 
    Money rules... These people have no sense of the future because they are old farts who never understood much apart from cash, money, greed, mula, pesetas, dollaros and tax minimisation. It's a pity. But then what can you do when Turdy Abbott is also as inspired as a ton of loose bricks on the subject of renewables. He has no clue as to why we should pay attention to global warming. Or should he have, he still wants to keep playing marbles with his friends who burn carbon...
    Like all elastics, once your stretch something to a particular point, something either snaps or contracts in a jiffy. The elasticity of the climate can only take so much added CO2 while only giving little grief in return. There are points soon at which the "normal" balance of weather will get very upset. Too much humidity and to much heat combining to create downpours and droughts of the century every year in various places on earth until the average temperature of the planet will increment by half a degree overnight... 
    I am not kidding. I am looking at all the recent observations made by dedicated scientists, serious universities and NASA on this subject and the prognosis is NOT GOOD. It's like having a cold, getting a bit better, so we stop taking our bitter pill then we die of pneumonia or high fever during the next night. 
    Be prepared... 
    The humidity in the higher atmosphere HAS INCREASED substantially in the past 30 years.

Meanwhile as usual the "denialist dork" is always the first geezer to post something contrary every time someone makes a simple stride forward on the subject of global warming — even a sideway step. For example, the Guardian revisited an old movie made in 1961, "The Day the Earth Caught Fire", to parallel what could happen under the possible conditions of future global warming: Thus from his denialist tower, demagogue8 come blasting with both barrels:

demagogue8

01 September 2014 6:04pm

Atmospheric temps have stalled, arctic sea ice is bouncing back, antarctic sea ice is breaking records. Time to bring out stories of doom and "The Day the Earth Caught Fire"

Fortunately, this is followed by two reasonable rebuttals, including one reminding us of the OBSERVABLE conditions, which we tend to forget as our pants are not on fire yet : 

  • 01 September 2014 6:17pm
  • what a pity the people with scientific credibility in atmospheric science don't agree with your point of view, pity really that your point of view is just that, a point of view
  • however, since things are going great, why are you posting? don't bother answering, i'm certain my guess is more of less
Jaget santos demagogue8

01 September 2014 6:49pm

Lets check with reality.

The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
- 159 Gt Antarctic LAND ice volume.........McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
+ 26 Gt Antarctic SEA ice volume............Holland et al, J Climate (2014) 

- 261 Gt Arctic sea ice................................PIOMAS

- 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al.............GRL (2014)

- 259 Gt other land based glaciers............Gardner et al. Science (2013)

TOTAL ICE LOSS PER YEAR = 1,031 Gt.
Just to be sure...
Care to describe how a loss of > 50% is a "bouncing back"?
Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record.

WMO and...

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. 
I think the world metrological organizations knows what they are talking about.And you cant even say that there has been no warming since 1998, deniers favourite cheery picked year (I cant imagine why).
GISS
NCDC
UAH
RSS
See the horizontal blue line? That would be a pause but as you can see only a few years since 1998 have been under the threshold.
So you cant even claim a statistical pause.

Not to mention that surface temperatures is only 2,3% of the excess heat, > 90% goes into the oceans because of basic chemistry called specific heat capacity. Water has 800-1200 more heat capacity then air.
So what have the ocean been doing? Oh right heating up.
Or global oceans temperature 0-700m, 0-2000m in data.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3...
Care to explain why >90% of the climate system is still warming and is accelerating?
This is called science supported by data you have feelies. 
Data >>> feelies.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/sep/01/doomed-earth-science-fiction-climate-reality
-------------------------------------------

One blogger in the comments also mentioned that people manage to live in "hotter climate" than London. Piss of piss. Easy.
    Exactly. How do people cope? Well there are ways to cope with more heat.
    Last year, Sydney broke its temperature record. The City itself registered 45.8 degrees Celsius. But the inner city suburbs registered more than 46.3. It's HOT! Not as high as say places like Dubai or Death Valley. Still, one has to consider that the humidity was somewhat higher than that of Dubai. This heat, with a certain amount of humidity, becomes highly oppressive. At 46.3 degrees Celsius outside, you stay inside... I do. I do not have air-conditioning but the house stay "cool" (no more than 27 degrees Celsius) should I not open any windows or doors.
    In the centre of Victoria, during the 2009 bushfires, the temperature hit records well above 47 degrees Celsius (with winds of more than 100 km/h). Near the fires the ambient temperature was well above 50 degrees Celsius. 
     In the centre of the continent last year temperatures reached 50 degrees Celsius. The weather people had to add a new notch in their colouring of charts.
     People survive such heat mostly in air-conditioned premises. 
    But we need to consider that not all life-forms (especially plants) on earth are as adaptable as humans. 

The "change of climate" under global warming conditions is not just about heat. It's also about snap cold and sudden changes of status in air masses due to the ice, with stronger storms, all with a trend for warmer. 
    Armageddon, global warming is not.
    Global warming changes the dynamics of the atmosphere and of the oceans within similar parameters changes as seen in past Aeons. For example about 120 million years ago, there was no ice on the planet and the sea level was more than 75 metres above that of now. The gaseous mix of the atmosphere was also different to that of now. 
    Eventually this warm period was followed by cooling. But such changes took tens of thousands of years. Even with these long period of change, many species could not adapt to the new conditions. New species became dominant, others became extinct.

One has to consider that as far as we know THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE PERIOD in this planet history when a massive lot of the "surface" carbon (including the sequestered carbon) was being made available in the atmosphere SO RAPIDLY than with the human PRESENT USAGE of "fossil fuel" (extraction of sequestered carbon). Thus the elasticity of the system is highly compromised on a fast scale, presently.

We know that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet's surface is. This of course is a contentious point as to which one comes first: higher temperatures or higher concentrations of CO2. But there is no dispute — even by the slightly scientific aware denialists (it's only the idiots like "demagogue8" who are rabid and ignorant on this point) —  that temperatures and CO2 concentration are interlocked (with relative elasticity) as noted in the geological record.
    Arrhenius (as well as other scientists, some with other recent experiments) have linked the warming squarely due to higher concentrations of CO2. This fits observations.
    By burning fossil fuel, we have overshot the natural maximum of CO2 concentration (300ppm) of the last million years.
    Presently the concentration of CO2 is 400 ppm. Some scientists say that beyond a certain level of CO2 (possibly above 500 ppm), things will quickly go haywire though they are confident that we are already in trouble. 
    We cannot see the full picture yet because a lot of the EXTRA ENERGY added by present global warming is absorbed by the melting of ice and the generally slow warming of the oceans — water being in need of a lot of energy to warm up. 
    With global warming comes increase humidity in the atmosphere. This can create temporary feedback loops that slow the warming by cloud-cover which eventually becomes clear, due to increase CO2. A sudden burst of warming thus follows. At which point this stabilise again, shoots up again and stabilise is hard to know. But we know that the ice on the planet can and will melt ENTIRELY. 
     We have to realise that due to the EXTRA release of CO2 by anthropogenic activity, the process is much faster than under ANY natural conditions. So what of the future?
    Warmer, wetter, drier and sudden changes of climatic pockets, more violent eddies (high and lows), rising sea level. All these are already in the pipeline. Most of serious climate scientists cannot see how we are going to avoid a rise of 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, while the UN has been trying hard to mitigate CO2 emissions to minimise the rise at 2 degrees Celsius then. The upshot is that now the predicted median point of possible warming is 4 degrees Celsius, the highest is above 6 degrees Celsius.  
     Such changes won't be "catastrophic" per se, but they will collapse a lot of nature's own reserve of adaptability. Mass extinction will occur. Humans will survive but it could (will) become ugly as resources such as food and water become scarce. Destruction by violent storms will be common place. By 2100, a city like Sydney can expect a few days with temperatures above 49 degrees Celsius. The "inevitable" resultant would be a massive collapse of green belts and decimation of gardens OVERNIGHT when such high temperature hit.
    Deserts exist not just through the lack of water but because not many plants can survive in such temperatures. Above 45 degrees Celsius, a lot of plants CANNOT COPE to being exposed to full sunlight. In many tender young plants, such temperature and full sunlight BOILS the water inside the leafs. By 2100, the minimum rise of sea level will be 45 centimetres above present. This will lead to the destruction of many features such as jetties and retaining sea walls, possibly leading to the collapse of old 1960s concrete dwellings near the seashore.

The rise and changes won't stop in 2100. The momentum of global warming will only have barely started. What will follow is for our descendants to decry the fools we were — especially those rich and successful of now who encouraged the burning of carbon. They will be deemed to be murderers...

We are engraving the history of this warming planet by burning carbon. Don't be fooled by the men in power. They are fools living in their own mind, while destroying this planet to sustain the greed of their peers...

 

only OECD country without science strategy...

Australia's chief scientist has unveiled an ambitious agenda for change to increase the focus on science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills to help secure the country's future prosperity.

Professor Ian Chubb AC has outlined a number of recommendations to the Federal Government in a national science strategy to build a more competitive economy.

His call for action involves a long-term strategic view from the classroom to laboratories and the boardroom to create and foster STEM skills, which he says are relevant to an increasingly wide range of occupations.

The strategy outlines a broad approach across four main areas, including building competitiveness, supporting high-quality education and training, maximising research potential and strengthening international engagement.

Professor Chubb said the strategy begins in the classroom, starting in primary school.

"If we've got young people coming through the system who are interested in science, fascinated by science and understand how awesome science can be, then we'll be better off for it," he said.

He has recommended that every primary school have at least one specialist maths and science teacher – a policy already used in Victoria and South Australia.

"It means we've got to support our teachers – we've got to prepare them better," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-02/chief-scientist-ambitious-strategy-boost-competitiveness/5711398

and by the way...

"They are the reasons why we expect a pretty tough season for most of NSW," he said.

Nationally, maximum temperatures are running the second-highest on record for the past year, at 1.33 degrees above the long-run average, according to David Jones, head of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology.

"The heat this year is even more pronounced in the eastern states," Dr Jones said. Mean temperatures for NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria were 1.08 degrees above average over the past 12 months, eclipsing the previous record anomaly of 1.02 degrees set only last year.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/despite-the-august-rain-another-active-fire-season-threatens-20140901-10az0x.html#ixzz3C8gkgvhP

cool idiots at the australian...

It seems the Government has just stopped caring about climate change action, and some media organisations have decided to no longer even pretend to hold them to account on the issue, writes Greg Jericho.

The review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) released last week served to highlight that rejection of the science on climate change is at the very core of this Government.

The selection of Dick Warburton to head the review of the RET was not an anomaly - it worked nicely in hand with the previous appointment of fellow climate change "sceptic" Maurice Newman as the head of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, and Tony Shepherd (former head of the Business Council of Australia - a group strongly in favour of the removal of the carbon price) as the head of the Commission of Audit.

Most governments never hold an inquiry unless they know the outcome, but what is new is the Government's lack of subtlety. In appointing Warburton, Shepherd and Newman to their respective posts, the Government not only ensured it got the result it wanted, it let everyone know it was ensuring that would be the case.

This shift to display no pretence about their position on climate change is present not only in Government, but also - and perhaps not coincidently - in right-wing sections of the media.

The Australian, for example, has recently taken to performing some activist journalism that one could suggest is privileging "the views of activist groups over the views of the wider community". Despite a majority of Australians agreeing with the science, The Australian's activism against climate-change science has recently seen it publish claims that the Bureau of Meteorology has fiddled its temperature data in an effort to suggest warming has occurred.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/jericho-government-goes-cold-on-global-warming/5714026

-----------------------------

Read article at top... There is 80 per cent chance that summer 2014-15 will be torrid... 

99.999 per cent....

 

What are the chances the world could clock up 353 consecutive months with average temperatures higher than the norm of the 20th century without humans being responsible?

CSIRO's now-defunct climate adaptation flagship crunched the numbers and found the chances were less than one in 100,000.

In other words, there's a 99.999 per cent certainty that human activities – from burning fossil fuels to land-clearing – are responsible for the warming conditions.

"Everyone since February 1985 has lived in a warm world," said Mark Howden, a CSIRO chief research scientist and author of the peer-reviewed report published on Thursday in the Climate Risk Management journal. "In my view, that's pretty extraordinary."

Advertisement

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise in most countries. Figures out this week show Australia's largest contributor – the power sector – had its fastest growth of emissions in the two months since the end of the carbon price in almost eight years.

The researchers' model included other potential causes of unusual temperatures – solar radiation, volcanic activity, El Nino Southern Oscillation weather patterns in the Pacific – to tease out the human contribution.

The paper said periods of slowing growth or even drops in temperatures had been taken up by climate sceptics to raise doubts about the link between rising concentrations of greenhouse gases and warming. 

In fact, the model found "one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring".

"The question is not that we have 11 [such periods of cooling in the surveyed period] but why don't we have more of them," Dr Howden said. "If it wasn't for human influence of greenhouse gas emissions, we'd actually have a lot more."

The CSIRO researchers noted that public acceptance in human-induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. CSIRO's climate adaptation flagship was disbanded at the end of June.

"We need to move past this phase where an apparent lack of certainty about climate change and the human influence is actually preventing the discussions of options," he said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html#ixzz3CLNnpSWn


Read article at top...

 

denialist sloth...

 

From George Monbiot

 

In The Magnificent Seven Deadly Sins, a comedy made in 1971, Spike Milligan portrays Sloth as a tramp trying to get through a farm gate. This simple task is rendered almost impossible by the fact that he can’t be bothered to take his hands out of his pockets and open the latch. He tries everything: getting over it, under it, through it, hurling himself at it, risking mortal injury, expending far more energy and effort than the obvious solution would require.

This is how environmental diplomacy works. Governments gather to discuss an urgent problem and propose everything except the obvious solution – legislation. The last thing our self-hating states will contemplate is what they are empowered to do: govern. They will launch endless talks and commissions, devise elaborate market mechanisms, even offer massive subsidies to encourage better behaviour, rather than simply say “we’re stopping this”.

This is what’s happening with climate change caused by humans. The obvious solution, in fact the only real and lasting solution, is to decide that most fossil fuel reserves will be left in the ground, while alternative energy sources are rapidly developed to fill the gap. Everything else is talk. But not only will governments not contemplate this step, they won’t even discuss it. They would rather risk mortal injury than open the gate.

The same applies to biodiversity, fisheries, neonicotinoid pesticides and a host of other issues affecting the living planet: negotiators have tried to work their way under, over and through the gate, while ensuring that the barrier remains in place.

It wasn’t always like this. There was a time when they took their hands out of their pockets.

This week the UN revealed that the ozone layer is recovering so fast that, across most of the planet, it will be more or less mended by the middle of the century. Ozone is the atmospheric chemical that blocks ultraviolet-B radiation, protecting us from skin cancer and from damage to our eyes and immune systems, and protecting plants from destruction. It’s coming back, and this is a great advertisement for active government.

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/sep/11/stopping-climate-meltdown-needs-the-political-courage-that-saved-the-ozone-layer

------------------------------------

From Gus

The main problem here is that stopping all nations from using CFCs was reasonably easy considering that CFCs only accounted for a very small (possibly 0.03 per cent) of the entire sum of human activities and had available economic alternatives. Extra carbon, on the other end — or the usage of fossil fuels — account for at least 90 per cent of human activities and apart from making rain dance, there is no economic equivalent. There should be but no one wants to move. That is why the United nations program calls for PROGRESSIVE cuts in our CO2 emissions. According to Gus's own calculations, the turning point was 1996. In 1996 we should have stopped producing a single EXTRA  carbon dioxide molecule in order to mitigate the rise of temperature on this planet at 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

But despite the scientific evidence, the carbon industry took umbrage at the necessity to do something about itself. They employed clever and gifted spruikers to denigrate the science rather than try to do something about it... Oh trust me, many of them understand the problem, but they bow to the god of cash before anything else. Should the carbon industry have invested more cash into sustainable energy sources, we would be far more advanced in protecting the planet. 

The scientific community has been under attack ever since it express concerns about finding some unsavoury facts and figures in regard to CO2. Imagine that no-one had paid attention to the problem in 1959. Engineers would have built a huge dam between Norway and Greenland to stop the advance of the next incoming ice age... No kidding. Despite the greenhouse effect being known since the late 1700s, despite the fact that calculations of "global warming" were made by Arrhenius in the late 1890s, most of our scientific acceptance of knowledge was still too elastic and vague, thus placed the age of the dinosaurs at 6 millions years ago in the 1930s popular encyclopaedias. 

It's only since the invention of the atom-weighing machine (1927?) and the formulation of quantum mechanics that things of science got streamlined into the world of higher precision, despite Newton's apple being precise enough to formulate some celestial mechanics. In fact, most scientific instruments, such as barometers and thermometers were of high precision then in the late 1700s, but this was not enough to understand the workings of light behaviour as a wave and as a particle. More experiments had to be made.

On the geological front, more studies using nuclear decay helped precise dating of strata layering, giving us the precise date of the extinction of dinosaurs at 66,038,000 years ago - give or take 11,000 (2011), though some scientists estimate that the extinction of the entire Dinosaur family took around one million years after a very rapid decline. Some earlier estimates of the extinction of the Dinosaurs were 65.95 million years ago, give or take 40,000 years (2008). These datings are not conflicting and are somewhat overlapping in the error variation. They are more precise than the 6 million years ago of the 1930s. 

Science has made leaps and bonds since then. Pity our mediatic spruikers (and lets not forget our creationist friends) still live in the middle ages when witches were burned to the stakes for fear of the unknown..

Science is correct on global warming — what are we going to do about it?... I guess keep our hands in our pockets...

iceage...

This article from a 1959 Sydney Morning herald...

see also: cosy small talk with electrostatic detritus collectors...

when science was wrong, but religion was even wronger...

dinosaurs

Of course the article above in a popular encyclopaedia is wrong. Either the scientists were still wrong at the time though still refining the dating processes or the writers of the encyclopaedia misunderstood the science which at most time is difficult to understand. It's easier to say Adam and Eve did this than to understand reality via scientific interpretations. Science is far closer to reality than religion can ever be. Religion is getting further and further away from reality, though some of its adherents are making more and more noise about "the truth" which is no more than "the porkies"... 


Above I wrote:

On the geological front, more studies using nuclear decay helped precise dating of strata layering, giving us the precise date of the extinction of dinosaurs at 66,038,000 years ago - give or take 11,000 (2011), though some scientists estimate that the extinction of the entire Dinosaur family took around one million years after a very rapid decline. Some earlier estimates of the extinction of the Dinosaurs were 65.95 million years ago, give or take 40,000 years (2008). These datings are not conflicting and are somewhat overlapping in the error variation. They are more precise than the 6 million years ago of the 1930s. 

 

Science is 99.999 per cent correct on global warming. Economics, politics and religions are dishonest art form on this subject.

twice as much...

Given the relentless long-term trend towards global warming, it should be a case of all hands on deck. But the world of politics appears to have trumped the laws of physics, writes Mike Steketee.

"THE laws of physics are non-negotiable," observed Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation, this week.

You wouldn't think so listening to the often frenzied debate about global warming or, according to Tony Abbott's senior business adviser Maurice Newman, what is really global cooling.

Jarraud was commenting on the release of the WMO's annual greenhouse gas bulletin, based mainly on data collected by 50 countries. It shows a 34 per cent increase in the warming effect of greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2013. Most of this is attributable to carbon dioxide, atmospheric concentrations of which have risen by 142 per cent since the start of industrialisation in the 18th century, "primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels and cement production".

The WMO recorded an increase of 2.9 parts per million from 2012 to 2013 - the largest rise since 1984 - although it added the figure was subject to seasonal and regional variations, such as a changing balance between photosynthesis and respiration or the amount of biomass burned.

The figures put the best face on things, more or less. The WMO's bulletin reports on concentrations of greenhouse gases rather than emissions - that is, what remains in the atmosphere after the estimated 25 per cent of emissions that are absorbed by the oceans and a similar amount by the biosphere, particularly plants. That means we are producing about twice as much long-lived greenhouse gases than can be taken up by the earth and the oceans.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/steketee-politics-trumps-physics-in-climate-change-frenzy/5738548

---------------------------