but with the earth being an irregular shape how do you determine the position of the centre.. bearing in mind the diameter is something like 8000 miles .. with enough accuracy to make such anouncements.
do we take a rough shape at mean sea level and find its centre...or the centre of the physical land ignoring the water covering.... if the solid matter is of varying density the centre of mass will be somewhere else.... etc.... its all male cows waste products.
heights of mountains have always been height above sea level, presumably surveyed from the nearest bit of ocean, simples , why try and change something simple to something complicated that is arguable a load of old shoe makers.
its time all these scientists got on trying to do something useful to address the real problems of energy and food supply that are beginning to stare us in the face
Hot...
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
-
- KG Regular
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Bedford
I think another point to be made is that global warming will involve certain places becomeing on average slightly cooler while others become rather less slightly warmer.
Sunspot activity may or may not have a bearing, but it is only for a short term. Global climate change needs to be seen over thousands of years, and all sorts of things can affect it, such as the wobble of the earth's axis which occurs from time to time. It stands to reason that man's activities may be having an effect, but how much of what we are seeing is actually our continuing emergence from the "mini-ice-age" of 1500-1800, or indeed from the last major ice age? 60,000 years ago the Congo rain forest was cool grasland. Before every ice age there was a rapid rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. These were not man-made changes; maybe what we are seeing now isn't either.
Lastly, if our weather patterns are caused by the Jet Stream, what causes changes in the Jet Stream?
Sunspot activity may or may not have a bearing, but it is only for a short term. Global climate change needs to be seen over thousands of years, and all sorts of things can affect it, such as the wobble of the earth's axis which occurs from time to time. It stands to reason that man's activities may be having an effect, but how much of what we are seeing is actually our continuing emergence from the "mini-ice-age" of 1500-1800, or indeed from the last major ice age? 60,000 years ago the Congo rain forest was cool grasland. Before every ice age there was a rapid rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. These were not man-made changes; maybe what we are seeing now isn't either.
Lastly, if our weather patterns are caused by the Jet Stream, what causes changes in the Jet Stream?
Please support Wallace Cancer Care
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
-
- KG Regular
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:51 pm
- Location: Stoke On trent
Once again, the Met Office has had to change its forecasts as the effects of Global warming have been exaggerated - by them.
"Climate change: Met Office halves 'worst case' sea level prediction
The Met Office has halved its "worst case" prediction for rising sea levels, in the latest instance of scientists being caught out for overstating the possible consequences of global warming. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ction.html
And they wonder why some people do not trust them?
"Climate change: Met Office halves 'worst case' sea level prediction
The Met Office has halved its "worst case" prediction for rising sea levels, in the latest instance of scientists being caught out for overstating the possible consequences of global warming. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ction.html
And they wonder why some people do not trust them?
-
- KG Regular
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Bedford
Are you being fair on the Met Office, madasafish? Predictions are made on the basis of evidence available at the time, and as more evidence becomes avaiable and verified, predictions change. The same thing happens in the medical field: a piece of research suggests that ingesting huge amounts of lycopene can prolong your life [it's an antioxidant], and then another suggests that it doesn't do as much good as was thought. Recommendations change and change about, but they are always reasonable, given the known evidence at the time.
Please support Wallace Cancer Care
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
According to that Telegraph article the report also says that some of the outcomes are actually worse than previously predicted. So it seems a case of 'over-exaggerating' and 'under-exaggerating'. I think the headline and the first paragraph are misleading as to the actual content of the article, seeing as how the report is being launched at the Cancun climate change conference. Does one revised prediction by the Met Office mean the whole report is rubbish?