Sig de Homepage van Fig. Sig Fig. Newsfeed Sig Fig. per E-mail Sig Fig. de Meeste Populaire Posten
Significante Cijfers
Het helpen van u, door met het blogging, het doorbladeren, en technologieuiteinden te helpen

← Super Zware Harde Aandrijving De Vingers en de Gaten van het maïszetmeel →

Het significante Globale Verwarmen

22 januari, 2007 · door David Bradley

Het globale verwarmenNergens is de kwestie van significante cijfers momenteel belangrijker dan in het debat over antropogene klimaatverandering, het globale verwarmen, en atmosferische kooldioxideemissies. Het aantal dat blogs en nieuwsplaatsen steeds tot extravagantere eisen voor de rol van menselijke activiteit in klimaatverandering is leidt echt plaatste aan stijging.

Over SEOblackhat.com er is een interesserende mythe-busting zitting die gaat, die blijkbaar in de context van de de optimaliseringsconcurrentie van de onderzoeksmotor voor gokken de uitdrukking „GlobalWarming Awareness2007 ″ wordt gedaan, en het maakt voor interessante lezing. Ik heb een handvol mythe-truths meldde hun voor uw delectation aangepast.

  • Mythe: De aarde is 1, 2, waren 5 of 10 graden verwarmingstoestel dan het 100 jaar geleden.
  • Waarheid: Hoogstens hebben wij een gemiddelde verhoging 0.6 van Celsius (en waarschijnlijk dichter aan 0.3 Celsius) in de loop van de laatste 100 jaar gehad, die jaarlijks nauwelijks meetbare 0.003-0.006 graden is!
  • Mythe: „Ik weet het Antropogene Globale Verwarmen voorkomt omdat het warmer is hier in Kleine Stad. Ik weet het warmer is, kan ik het voelen. “ 
  • Waarheid: De hogere lokale temperaturen betekenen geen ding, aangezien wij over globale gemiddelden hier spreken.
  • Mythe: De kooldioxideniveaus en de gemiddelde mondiale temperaturen zijn bij een verslag hoog in de geschiedenis van de Aarde.
  • Waarheid: Geen zijn zij niet, zijn de kooldioxide en de temperaturen bij enkele laagste niveaus teruggaande miljoenen jaren.
  • Mythe: De toenemende kooldioxideniveaus zijn direct verbonden met toenemende globale temperaturen.
  • Waarheid: de temperatuur stijgingen schijnen om kooldioxidestijgingen tussen 400 en 4000 jaar langs achter te blijven.
  • Mythe: Is Ijs dat Bladen het achteruitgaat bewijs dat het antropogene Globale Verwarmen voorkomt.
  • Waarheid: De ijskappen smelten.
  • Waarheid: Zij zouden kunnen zijn Mars, maar Antarctica groeit.
  • Mythe: De kooldioxide is het grootste broeikasgas.
  • Waarheid: Nr, dat is water damp, en het methaan is zowat twintig keer meer machtig dan kooldioxide.
  • Mythe: Als wij goedkeuren is het echt, kunnen wij iets over het doen.
  • Waarheid: Zelfs als die 0.3-0.6 gradenstijging neer aan antropogene kooldioxideemissies is gaat niets van de koolstof die in de wereld compenseert om het even welk verschil maken, is er geen manier wij al dat kooldioxide kunnen uit zuigen en het begraven bij de bodem van de oceaan om niveaus onderaan terug te brengen aan pre-industrial zonder het gebruiken van een gehele partij meer energie en een gehele partij of niet te veroorzaken meer emissies aan laars in de proces, zonne en windmacht.
  • Mythe: Het moet waar zijn, dat zeggen zij.
  • Waarheid: Wat als het heel wat hete lucht is?

Andere Middelen:

11 responses so far ↓

  • Mark // Jan 22, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    According to an article on chron.com today, many environmental scientists are admitting that they may have oversold the global warming issue.

    I quote: “In their efforts to capture the public’s attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It’s probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

    ‘Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,’ says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.”

  • Shirley // Jan 23, 2007 at 11:19 am

    So, are we going to get an ice age instead?

  • moshu // Jan 24, 2007 at 6:23 am

    I was questioning the antropogenic global warming just based on my classic humanistic education: hubris, I said.
    Now I am glad that scientists have doubts, too.

  • Phil // Jan 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Washington Times has an interesting take on teh supposed melting away of Greenland and its impact on sea levels.

    “The satellite data (analyzed by NASA’s Scott Luthcke in the journal Science less than two months ago) show a reduction of 3 hundred-thousandths of Greenland’s total ice per year.

    Multiplying the satellite-based figure by 23 feet, which is what others have claimed would be the rise if the whole of Greenland’s ice melted into the sea, gives the annual rise in sea level of .01 inch per year.

    Averaged over three decades, that’s a third of an inch, which indeed is too small to be detectable.

    Consider that melt over a century and it’s little more than an inch. That’s not really enough to make anyone with a beach house worry is it?

  • Clive // Jan 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    US Senate Committee site says: “The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.”

    Ridiculous!!! I thought this was a free country.

  • David Bradley // Feb 18, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    My skeptical remarks about climate change continue to be vindicated. In The Times this week, Nigel Calder former editor at my old virtual stamping ground New Scientist, points out the same issue I did regarding the 10% uncertainty being an enormous issue, scientifically speaking. He also mentions various other problems such as the fact that despite a lot of quacking about migrant birds moving earlier than they ought, “in east Antarctica the AdĂ©lie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago?”

    Moreover, Calder adds, “While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.”

    So, what’s going on? Is climate change a scam? Is the changing sun the real driving force, and not anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels?

  • David Bradley // Apr 27, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    Interesting post on http://www.quickrob.com/weblog/?p=961 about the irrational points of view regarding global warming that we hear from DiCaprio, Crowe, Gore et alia

  • Dino // Jun 11, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    I come from Malaysia. There’s lots of tropical rainforest here. Many of the trees here in my country are actually the tallest tropical trees in the world.

    Since 2000, I’ve observed many of the bigger trees dying out….slowly, insidiously. Looking across the rainforest silhouette, I notice even a slight thinning of the canopy and many emergent trees downsizing their branches, crowns getting smaller, gnarly….

    What could be the reason? A patch of primary forest I used to visit for 5 years straight, saw many big trees falling or just withering…

    Pictures 20 years ago of the canopy of a particular patch, and pictures of the exact same spot today, show degradation in the canopy structure, with many big trees missing and replaced with smaller ones…and mind you this patch is a virgin jungle with no logging. Its not obvious if no one told you or showed you the two pics - then and now…

    I’m a very observant person and so I notice these things…it’s pretty alarming from a certain standpoint.

    This may or may not indicate global warming, I dont know, but primary rainforests are supposed to be very stable habitats, with little change.

  • David Bradley // Jun 11, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    Dino, there has never been a period in earth’s history when it has been entirely stable without any change, there are always climatic, geologic, and cosmic events that influence the equilibrium. As a species, we have only really been observing things, as well as we may for a few years. We are experiencing climate change, of course, that’s part of the nature of the planet on which we live. Whether it is going to take us to an undesirable equilibrium point some time in the future, is the problem both sides of the debate will not know until we reach that time.

  • John M. Quinn // May 2, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Your “Truth” That Temperature changes LAG CO2 Changes by 400 to 400 years is, I believe, erroneous. The Truth that I know is that during four interglatial periods (i.e., going from an ice age to a warming period) temperature changes LAGGED CO2 changes by 800 +/- 200 years. This is based on the 400,000 year long VOSTOK, Antarctica ice core. Ref: Monnin et al., Atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last glacial terminaation, Nature, 291 pp. 112-114 (2001)

  • David Bradley // May 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Hi John

    Thanks for the correction, I will double check the sources on this and correct as appropriate.

    db

Leave a Comment

Comments are checked for spam before appearing, no need to post it twice.

Related Posts