THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
ALL: WRT to Peter Martin’s second image of housing collapse “caused by permafrost melt”, I was highly amused by this and sniffed around on Google. It turns out that those old buildings are evidently in Dawson City Canada, (in the “Gold Rush” Yukon), at latitude ~64 north. That building collapse seems to be a bit of tourist attraction, and it has been variously photographed. This is perhaps the clearest image available:
Notice the deciduous tree exceeding three stories high. It looks like a Silver Ash to me, (anglophile), and if so, it is doing very well indeed.
Here’s another less usual shot in WINTER, proving the deciduous nature of that tree on the right:
There are several other blogo-photos, but keeping it brief, the following site gives a lot of other photos around Dawson City itelf, yet the ONLY “drunken” building is shown in the image above. (The one that is multiply duplicated elsewhere on AGW alarmist sites, such as NSIDC). Dawson City is also per a photo gallery, abundant in various species tall healthy (VERTICAL) exotic deciduous trees.
Please visit particularly the 48 photos labelled ‘General’
Brute and Max
I think his motives are manifold
He is a genuine explorer who loves the arctic and has been there numerous times.
He is genuinely concerned at its condition and has been persuaded it needs proper analyis so he has a genuine scientific interest.
He gets very well paid for his motivational speeches and this will be extremely good material for him and gives him a high profile.
That he is an ordinary man was highlighted in a headline from the local paper
“Local Dad heads for the Arctic”
I am not a friend of his but I do think he is a genuine person who wants to do this for good reasons of his own, has perhaps underestimated the onerous nature of the scientifc elements, and lastly wants new material for his talks.
TonyB
Hi Bob_FJ,
You asked about the angle of the sun in the places where permafrost exists.
Locals told me that north of the Brooks Range, about halfway between Deadhorse and Coldfoot, Alaska, the permafrost is a continuous sheet extending from a few cm below the surface down to as deep as 400 meters. In mid to late July the daytime air temperature was between 8 and 10C, but the permafrost was just a few cm below the surface. All you needed to do was scratch the sod above it to find solid ice.
Deadhorse, Alaska is at 61.3 degrees latitude. This is well north of the tree line (and the continuous permafrost line).
I was there the third week of July and the sun never really set. Its angle was pretty low (but I did not measure it over the day).
This chart gives the noontime angle of the sun at various latitudes at various times of the year.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/29/season2.html
This tells me that the angle (from the horizon) at noon would have been around 40-45 degrees.
The place where I noticed the scraggly tilted trees with shallow roots was about 150 km north of Coldfoot, Alaska (which lies at 67.2 degrees, just north of the Arctic Circle). The sun dipped below the horizon there at night when I was there, but it stayed light 24 hours, as well. The trees around Coldfoot had deeper roots and looked healthy.
I was told that there is some permafrost even as far south as Fairbanks (at 64.9 degrees latitude), but it lies much deeper with the top at 20+ meters below the surface. Locals told me this permafrost is immune to usual summer surface air temperatures in the high 20sC because of its depth.
The chimneys on the picture you showed had shadows that appear to indicate that the sun was at around 60 degrees. From the chart it would appear that this could not be much further north than around 50 degrees latitude, even if the picture was coincidentally taken at noon on June 21 (and probably further south than that in actual fact), so I doubt if there was any permafrost near enough to the surface there to cause building subsidence (unless these pictures were taken at high altitudes).
Alaska is a fascinating place. The Prudhoe Bay oilfields are a sight to see. There is hardly any evidence at the surface that there even are major oilfields in production there. The operators as well as the service companies abide by very strict environmental guidelines. Anyone who violates them is fired (I was told). Occasionally, curious caribou come to see what is going on and have to be shooed away.
The rest of Alaska is beautiful, as well, and well worth a trip. Didn’t see any Australians when I was visiting there, but I did meet a couple of New Zealanders (and a lot of Europeans from all over).
Regards,
Max
Max
Tonyb,
I shouldn’t have written this. I’m sure that his motivation is pure.
Robin
The Scottish opinion poll is, as you say, a heavy read.
It lays some emphasis on people’s knowlege of climate change, and therefor one might expect that there would be an attempt to gauge the extent and integrity of that knowlege. By this I mean whether opinion is being formed on the basis of the usual scare stories: perishing polar bears, wildfires caused by AGW, rapidly melting ice caps and rising sea levels etc. More importantly, whether respondents can distinguish between empirical evidence and predictions or speculation. We’ve disused this before.
Given the stated aims of the poll, it is hardly surprising that this rather obvious component got skipped. The old adage that the less you know about a subject the easier it is to form an opinion would seem to apply.
Re. the Kingsnorth trial, I should have checked which court this took place in. But surely if Hansen were to give evidence on behalf of the Stansted protectors in an appeal, the dilemma for the government would be far more serious one? An important aspect of transport policy would be at stake rather than the fate of a few activists who in any case would, I expect, have far preferred to become martyrs with all the ongoing publicity that could be generated, rather than be acquitted.
This quiz evaluates how “conservative” or “progressive” you are. It’s a 40 question quiz and you are rated out of 400 – the lower the rating, the more conservative you are. The average American (it’s an American quiz) scores 209. My score was 215: oh no, I’m a progressive (just). Sorry, Brute.
Peter should love it – especially the climate change question.
Hee, Hee.
I scored 26 out of 400 making me “extremely conservative”. To be fair to myself I generally chose zero or ten (I’m decisive and have definite views on things…..in for a penny in for a pound). I’ve never been very wishy washy on anything…..no “shades of gray” with me. It’s either on or off, hot or cold, black or white.
Aside from that, I rushed through it….don’t have a lot of time this morning.
By the way, the group operating this survey is The Center for American Progress. Joe Romm’s group (Climate Progress) is an offshoot of this same radical, leftist “think tank” and operate out of the same address……..just down the street from where I work ironically.
Center for American Progress
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709
Scored 253, very progressive apparently. Makes me more liberal than an Obama supporter according to that site. Can’t shake the impression i should be wearing hemp clothing, building a house out of recycled paper bricks, and eating bean curd :) Who said steroypes couldn’t be fun :)
I’m interested to see how manacker does, what with me being his sockpuppet and all :)
Re my #4916, Ms Cunningham may be worried that only 12% of Scots seems to regard climate change as important for their country but, as Ipsos MORI points out, that’s “slightly higher than in comparable UK wide studies … in Ipsos MORI’s monthly ‘most important issues facing Britain’ series, 8% of respondents mentioned the issue during the first half of 2008 and 7% did so during the second half of the year”. This lack of concern underscores my contention (#4651) that, even in the West, “practically nothing is likely to be done about curbing CO2 emissions until 2012” by which time James Hansen’s dire warnings that action must be taken within four years will have expired. So, if Hansen and Peter are right, we’re all doomed. Fortunately, the evidence that they’re wrong is mounting.
Hi Bob_FJ,
Forgot to mention. Met a guy who lives in the small community of Wiseman, AK (25 km or so north of Coldfoot), who “lives off the land there”. He grew up there, shot his first grizzly bear at age twelve, got a graduate degree in biology and lived in Fairbanks for a few years before heading back north again to the place in which he grew up. His house is covered with moose antlers. He grows potatoes and king-size squash in the rich soil covering the permafrost north of the Arctic Circle (lots of summer sun). Solar panels work well (half of the year) and the rest of his electrical power needs are supplied by diesel generators. It was nice and warm (around +15C) when I visited him, but it routinely gets –30 to –40C in winter.
BTW his house is not “sudsiding”.
Regards,
Max
Just took the quiz as well. Since it is directed at US inhabitants, some questions were not evident for me.
My score was 168, making me a “conservative” and putting me to the left of Brute (and Genghis Khan plus Attila the Hun) but to the right of Barelysane.
Max
Peter and Bob_FJ
Following recent exchanges on permafrost deterioration resulting from AGW I have done some basic checking what’s out there in the way of information on the topic. Here’s what I have been able to find (if either of you have anything else to add, please do so).
Permafrost is defined as: “Permanently frozen subsoil, occurring throughout the Polar Regions and locally in perennially frigid areas.”
An older Canadian study concludes, “Annual mean temperature and thawing index appear to provide a first approximation of probable permafrost occurrence that is suitable for preliminary engineering assessment purposes.”
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic15-2-151.pdf
So places with low annual mean temperatures and a low thawing indexes are more likely to have permafrost than those with higher temperatures and thawing indexes, which seems quite logical.
Permafrost apparently cannot form under glaciers, since the thick layer of ice acts as an insulation to shield the soil from the bitter cold winter air temperatures.
But how about the vulnerability of existing permafrost to a warming climate?
One Canadian study refers to records on glaciers, which have been receding since they reached their post-Ice Age maximum extent in the mid-19th century, and draws a parallel with permafrost, where data are more limited than for the glaciers. The study finds that the southern boundary of the permafrost line in both Canada and Russia is gradually moving to the north in the few spots that measurements have been taken.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic2-1-13.pdf
The study does conclude that new permafrost is still forming locally both in Canada and Russia, but that the overall trend appears to be a slowly receding boundary. At one location in Russia, the report states that the permafrost line had moved 96 kilometers over the past century.
Actual data on permafrost thawing is sketchy for most locations. “At present our only available record from the interior of the [Labrador] peninsula comes from [one single location]. As it is now, we hardly have the faintest clue to these [permafrost] limits because the isothermal lines themselves are largely hypothetical.”
Another study shows changes in ground temperatures at a location in Alaska at various depths from 1930 to the present. The chart shows that ground temperatures near the surface have increased more than those at a depth of 50 cm or 1 meter (where the top of the permafrost lies). A table shows recent trends in permafrost temperatures measured at different locations across the Arctic.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_romanovsky.html
The study concludes, “If recent trends continue, it will take several centuries to millennia for permafrost to disappear completely in the areas where it is now actively warming and thawing.”
Yet another more recent study points out that permafrost, unlike sea ice, is quite resistant to swings in surface air temperatures.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5896/1648
“Climate models predict extensive and severe degradation of permafrost in response to global warming, with a potential for release of large volumes of stored carbon. However, the accuracy of these models is difficult to evaluate because little is known of the history of permafrost and its response to past warm intervals of climate. We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.”
It is known that there have been several interglaciations over the past 700,000 years with temperatures significantly warmer than today over periods of thousands of years. Arctic temperatures around 70,000 to 125,000 years B.P. were 4-5°C warmer than those of today for tens of thousands of years. More recently, the permafrost survived the Holocene Climate Optimum (9000-5000 B.P.) with Arctic temperatures 4-6°C warmer than today over several thousand years, as well as the Roman Optimum (200BC – 400AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200AD), both with Arctic temperatures that were significantly warmer than those of today.
The study highlights the resilience of permafrost to past warmer climate. The findings suggest “that permafrost and associated carbon reservoirs that are more than a few meters below the surface may be more stable than previously thought.”
In other words, the climate model predictions of severe permafrost degradation in response to AGW are not supported by the physical evidence from the past.
It is difficult to find any references to actual loss of Arctic permafrost with recent warming. There are no comprehensive data based on physical observations on how the permafrost actually reacts to the current warming of average annual Arctic temperatures.
Instead, one can see lots of alarming “forecasts” for the future based on model projections (nine out of ten “Google hits” fit into this category).
The models studies, which form the basis for the alarming predictions of permafrost degradation resulting from AGW are flawed for two reasons:
· The assumed average annual temperatures increases from the models are based on exaggerated assumptions on positive feedbacks that are not supported by actual physical observations, and
· The sensitivity of permafrost to increases in average annual Arctic temperatures in the models is exaggerated, as the above study shows
In addition to the alarming “forecasts” one can find many questionable headlines prediction disaster, such as “Melting of permafrost could trigger rapid global warming warns UN”, “Arctic permafrost set to disappear over next century”, etc.
But these are hardly to be taken seriously.
So I would conclude from all of this that it appears that Arctic permafrost may have receded over the past 150 years, but the supporting data are sketchy, we do not know whether or not the late 20th century warming in the Arctic is causing any major changes in the permafrost, but we have good indications that it has been resilient to temperatures much warmer than those of today for extended periods of time. We also know that the model studies predicting extensive and severe degradation of the permafrost due to AGW are flawed and need to be corrected to incorporate the latest information on the observed low permafrost sensitivity to increased air temperatures.
Regards,
Max
Hey….Is that nice? After all of the wonderful things I’ve said/written about you?
Changing the subject………What are your thoughts regarding Chaos Theory as it relates to climate prophecies?
I referred at #4934 to Ipsos Mori’s monthly ‘most important issues facing Britain’ surveys. They’re here and I find them fascinating (but I’m a sad polling anorak). Ipsos MORI started to conduct these surveys in 1974, so there are an amazing 35 years of monthly results. Respondents are asked to choose the most important issues from a list of 42 (to understand the code let your cursor hover over each item). The key one (for us) is POL (“Pollution/Environment”) which must include global warming / climate change – a subject not mentioned until October 1998 (what triggered it then I wonder?). It quickly achieved significant percentages: 21% annual average in 1989 and 18% in 1990. Then it tailed off to single figures (only 4% in 1993). This continued until 2006/07 when it rallied (slightly) to 10/11%. In 2008, it was a barely significant 8%. It will be interesting to see if the current flurry of scare stories makes a difference. But it seems unlikely (especially in view of current economic woes) to get back to 1989/90 levels.
Any views/observations?
Sorry I forgot the link (to that monthly Ipsos MORE survey). It’s here.
Hey Brute,
I’ll get back to Chaos Theory in a bit, but since you’ve developed an active interest in what used to be Peter’s favorite subject (Arctic sea ice changes), this one is for you.
Mark Serreze is the NSIDC spokesman for Arctic sea ice, often spreading messages of “gloom and doom”, but rarely spending much time reporting “good news”.
But let’s do a quick “veracity test” on Serreze.
In November 2008 Serreze gave a paper of what he called “The emergence of arctic amplification.”
[Could it have been that he wanted to divert the attention from the fact his NSIDC figures were showing that November 2008 Arctic sea ice extent had recovered dramatically from its much-hyped November 2006 low, and was now at a level exceeding that in 1996 – who knows?]
“The concept of Arctic amplification is that rises in surface air temperature in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic compared to the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. Model-projected Arctic amplification is focused over the Arctic Ocean. As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens and intensifies, leading to less sea ice at summer’s end.”
http://instaar.colorado.edu/other/seminar_abstracts.html
How true is this statement?
Roger Pielke reports an analysis by William Chapman of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979. These figures, based on actual physical observations since satellite records on sea ice started, show that there has been no lengthening of the summer melt season, as postulated by Serreze.
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/04/are-there-long-term-trends-in-the-start-of-freeze-up-and-melt-of-arctic-sea-ice/
Oh well. It was a good try (and who read Pielke’s de-bunking, anyway).
Max
Peter, re your 4899
[Sorry, folks, this is a long one]
It is strangely ironic that you wrote, “Their mind is made up just like yours and probably nothing will ever change it.” Did it ever occur to you that the same can be said of you and those who accept the theory of AGW? Currently, the facts don’t support that theory. Even you have finally admitted that the temperatures are “flattening off”. Most of the contributors to this blog would argue that temperatures have not only ‘flattened off’, but have dropped, and have done so for 10 years! And yet, as we have seen repeatedly shown in these very pages well-referenced links that clearly show continued rise in atmospheric CO2. Despite Kyoto, despite aggressive cap and trade taxes in Europe, CO2 emissions are rising, and will without a doubt continue to rise and even increase their rate of advance.
In addition, Peter, you and Max have had repeated and long-winded discussions of the minutia of some of the underlying science revolving around the theory of AGW, whether the sun, or solar activity could be the blame, or whether the polar ice caps and melting or not. And there have been other discussions from TonyB and Bob_FJ about PDO and rising sea levels, and UHI, etc. There has been lots and lots of fact and theory, and references and links, and postulating and opinion. But from my perspective, you have been defending the same tired, old AGW position from the get-go, with no real new data. I suspect that the reason for that is that the new data doesn’t support the theory, so you prefer to attempt to first undermine the data itself by challenging the funding source behind the data, and then by attempting to undermine the people who collected and reported the study’s results.
Peter, long before I participated in this forum, when I first began to hear about the theory of AGW, I accepted it as probable fact. The reports, after all, were from what I believed to be reputable sources. Scientists were saying that the Earth was warming unnaturally, and human activity was the source of the warming. I made sense to me, and I accepted it.
But then I began to see more and more scientists raising the specter of doubt about the conclusions of some of the research. So I began to look into the subject with a more objective, and growingly skeptical viewpoint. Eventually I saw that the AGW argument lined up incredibly neatly with Green movement and the more radical elements of the environmental and “social justice” movements. So neatly did their goals line up that it seemed too coincidental. Alarm bells started going off as my ‘coincidentometer’ started reading off the scale. It has been said that the supporters of communism didn’t really die with the collapse of the USSR, they transformed into the Greens and the anarchists and the radical environmental groups. These people have an agenda, and it is not one that lines up with freedom and liberty, which are my agenda. Once I made that connection, and as the facts continued to come in supporting the skeptical view, my skepticism became more and more embedded. I even exchanged emails with the late Reid Bryson, wherein he blasted the AGW movements. He wrote to me, (paraphrasing) ‘We don’t know how to model aerosols, so how can we model climate changes decades into the future?’ He was clearly in the GIGO camp.
Peter, what you have complained about the skeptics here, that their minds are “made up”, must really be used to describe YOU. Despite the facts, you continue to support the AGW theory. Instead of objectively considering all the facts—including the ones that don’t support AGW—you choose to undermine these other sources of data since they don’t support your viewpoint.
Peter, it is you who are not being rational, and therefore not logical about this discussion. You seem to believe that no rational person could look at [your] facts and come to any other conclusion. There is a saying that “you have a right to own opinions, but not to your own facts.’ You have to consider ALL the facts, not just the ones that fit your hypothesis.
You also tend to argue—albeit between the lines—that only scientists are qualified to comment on the science. I heartily disagree. Science is a great tool. The objective application of science can solve and eventually WILL solve just about all the mysteries of life. But you don’t need a science degree to apply logic to a set of facts, or a theory about a set of facts. The People, ultimately, will decide the course of action on “climate change”. As Robin has so eloquently and repeatedly pointed out, the people have already spoken: CO2 will rise no matter what governments try to do. The people of India, China and the rest of the developing world are not going to change for the sake of the IPCC and the elites of the European chattering classes.
Peter, I hope you will post again, but I also hope you will stop with the personal attacks, stop with the strange identity obsessions, and stop trying to equate Creationism with AGW skepticism. Whether there is a link between the two or not is irrelevant to our discussions, and continuing down this path only further undermines your credibility. When you change the subject from the merits of the argument to the intellect and rationality of your opponent, you are losing the argument.
J Z Smith
Nice post. There are three areas of life where blind faith seems prevalent, religion, politics and environmentalism.
Some people will continue to believe what they want no matter what evidence you show them because otherwise that belief system is destroyed. We have it in the UK where it is said that a monkey wearing a red rosette (labour party colours) could get elected in some traditional Labour strongholds. Gordon Browen can wreck the economy by mad spending as he has been doing for 12 years and those people will still want the monkey as long as he is wearing red.
It is often said that environmentalism is a religion and it shares many of its aspects. This is coupled to a belief by adherents that they are right and if you disagree you must be wrong, mad, or need re educating. In that it is quite strongly a socialist movement and it is no coincidence that the UK Green party has a marxist manifesto.
I think the stubborness of temperatures to read the AGW script will see a new battlefield opened up-that of acidifcation of the oceans- so whilst one beast may eventually be slain another is being incubated that is even more powerful.
Tonyb
Robin, your poll from post 4931 is suspicious. I scored 122, “very conservative”, but I have taken other such polls and tend to be much more libertarian middle-of-the-road.
So I got to looking at the details. First, the poll was conducted by the Center for American Progress, a progressive organization. They are advocates for left wing, progressive causes. The poll respondents (see below) were 52 to 38 percent Democrat or ‘lean-Democrat’ vs. Republican.
This has all the “earmarks”, if you’ll pardon the expression, of a “push-poll”.
Hi Brute,
You mentioned the Chaos Theory and climate change.
Here are some non-scientific thoughts from an English Ward Councillor, Gavin Aylin, who describes himself as a “liberal conservative”, where he uses the term “liberal” as someone who believes in the principles of libertarianism (I believe you would call that a “libertarian” in the USA).
http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2009/02/28/chaos-and-climate-change/
The modelers obviously do not like the idea that our climate is “chaotic” (and that it will do what it wants to do, when it wants to, regardless of whether we curb CO2 emissions or not).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641
One skeptical blog site takes the position that the modelers have protected themselves against falsification of their results by simply stating that any actual occurrence that does not conform to the model prediction is “background noise”, which can be ignored.
The author writes, “This looks like some kind of ‘suffocating love, with the modellers so worried about their models, they have shielded them from almost all possibilities of falsification (in the process, pretty much abandoning “science” as usually understood)”.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/tag/chaos-theory/
I personally believe that the modelers have oversimplified everything to fit their narrow and naïve viewpoint of what “drives” climate. Their models are programmed to essentially ignore the impact of the sun or the ocean and to put the “blame” for all climate forcing on anthropogenic factors. When it cools despite record greenhouse gas emissions, this is written off as “background noise” or an “outlier” caused by a temporary change in ENSO patterns from warming to cooling, or (in the case of the prolonged mid-century cooling) as the result of conjured up virtual human aerosol emissions.
It’s the old “my forecast was correct except for…” story that Nassim Taleb discusses in his book, “The Black Swan”.
I’m sure you’ve heard this one in the past: the sales manager who (without even batting an eye) tells you, “my volume forecast was right, it’s just the year (or the sales price) that needs to be changed”.
The fact that these so-called climate scientists (who are to a large extent actually computer jockeys) can actually declare (again without even batting an eye) that it has really been warming since 1998 due to human CO2 emissions, but that this warming is just being “temporarily masked” by natural factors, and will some day come back with a vengeance, tells me that they no longer have touch with reality and are lost in a virtual computer-generated fantasy world of their own.
In explaining the fact that experts are usually more wrong on predictions within their field of expertise than non-expert laymen, Taleb points out that “it isn’t so important what you know about a subject; it is more important what you do not know.”
This is where the modelers have lost touch, in my opinion.
Climate is changing. It always has. It always will. We cannot stop it. And it will do so chaotically, when it wants to do so, without any help from us at all.
Climate scientists in general prefer to believe they know (and can therefore predict) what is going on in their field (the solar guys may not agree with the AGW crowd or the ocean current experts, but each group thinks it knows best). They generally do not like to hear that the system they have spent their careers studying is inherently “chaotic”, and that their knowledge, as deep as it may be, barely scratches the surface. Hearing this is not an “ego booster” for these guys. But it is a fact.
Those are my thoughts on this, but there may be more treatises on the chaotic nature of climate out there.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
While researching Peter’s photographs and the website that it led me to, I found this. I don’t know if this community goes with Peter’s photo or not but I found it interesting. Seems this community is built on a barrier island…..maybe it’ll help your search. Seems to be the “poster village” for the assertion by the eco-nuts that global warming is melting permafrost and wrecking houses.
JZSmith
Reur 4942.
WOW!
You’ve hit the nail on the head very eloquently.
I hope Peter replies in kind.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Thanks……Pretty heady stuff. I was watching a documentary on the Discover Science Channel last night titled “The Complete Cosmos” (or something like that), and to my surprise the statement was made that the climate can never be modeled due to this theory. I think it was the Science Channel (we receive something like 800 channels nowadays……I’ve never even switched through all of them. When I was a kid we had 4).
Maybe Bob_FJ can weigh in here; I think he specialized in statistical probabilities, number crunching.
I can get a pretty good idea of what tomorrow’s weather will be by looking at what’s going on in the Ohio Valley today, but that’s about it. A week, month, year or decade from now is literally a coin toss.
Complete Cosmos
Secrets of the Solar System
TV-G, CC
Take a tour of the planetary system, starting at the sun and reaching to the very edge of the solar system.
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=48.15725.115382.10128.x
You should try to catch it if you receive this channel.
JZ,
Good post, (#4942).
Is it me or has the conversation been elevated lately?
Latest update from the Pen Hadow team. Brute, I think their motives are purer than you might think as you don’t suffer like this and put your life on the line in the hope only that it will bring in more speaking engagements.
The last sentence on the linked site are hilarious. Perhaps if the scientists did have to go on these expeditions, instead of driving from their heated homes in their heated cars to their heated offices, they might find the real world is still more savage than they realise.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/Utterly_utterly_miserable
The weather shoud begin to warm up soon or I fear for their safety-this is extreme cold.
Tonyb
Here you are TonyN……….
ebb and flow … Overblown wind plan just hot air
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/oe/20080319.ebb_and_.22646.asp