Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah?

..........and how successful have these "politics" been in stalling human use of MDMA?:D

The research is still conducted in saner parts of the world, and science is international.

Yeah but using it effectively in Australia as a therapy is the point.
 
Oh I agree, it sucks.

But we're also the nation that achieved some of the great scientific advances of human endeavour, most of them coming out of the government funded and run CSIRO.

How do we change from the current shitful situation?

Diverse, intelligent, well funded media would be a start.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Specifically from that link (thought I'd posted this already):

If you ask this question directly (do warmer temperatures directly increase evaporation and thereby cause droughts or intensify droughts), the answer is no.


If you ask this question in the broader sense (does global warming cause droughts, or intensify droughts) the answer is both yes and no because it depends where you are on the planet.


If global warming causes local declines in rainfall there is the potential that this will cause or intensify drought. So, first and foremost, drought is a question of rainfall and global warming is changing the intensity of rainfall and rainfall patterns such that some regions are getting wetter while some regions are getting drier. In Australia, rainfall has declined in the southwest, parts of southern Australia over the last century and in eastern Australian over the last 30 years.

So it certainly raises the question about the relationship between 21st century droughts and changes in rainfall in eastern Australia.
 
It's coming.

A new dawn where children are born without genetic diseases.

Wonderful stuff.

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)



Seems like a big crowd.


the media blackout on bernie is getting absurd. a poll just came out that placed him in a mathematical tie with biden, even with the results tilted towards "likely voters" which bernie's best demographics don't usually belong to. If the media reported on him fairly he'd already be 10-20 points in the lead.
 
Well, look what we've got here.

Paper out of Finland

Basically claims that the IPCC is behaving fraudulently

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.


 
the media blackout on bernie is getting absurd. a poll just came out that placed him in a mathematical tie with biden, even with the results tilted towards "likely voters" which bernie's best demographics don't usually belong to. If the media reported on him fairly he'd already be 10-20 points in the lead.

I don't really follow US politics but someone showed me a cropped version of that photo earlier tonight so i looked it up and read a few things online and its ridiculous the lack of coverage in the MSM. I like him as a candidate but even he gets elected he is still a cog in the Washington machine isn't he?

Its a system and they slot presidents into it but it keeps churning along anyway. there's alot in place in the Us to make sure a candidate like bernie Sanders does
 
Well, look what we've got here.

Paper out of Finland

Basically claims that the IPCC is behaving fraudulently

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.



Its a paper that claims increases in temp over the last 35 correspond to increases in relative humidity not CO2 and climate change is not happening due to human activity.

Its a bit sketchy tho. There's heaps of information missing. There are some odd assumptions, like ... are they saying there is a 1 on 1 correlation between relative humidity and cloud cover? Increases in RH don't necessarily correspond to cloud cover, and sometimes the RH is high for extended periods but only intermittent cloud cover happens during those periods. There is definitely some correlation tho. But water vapour is a GHG and a cloud isn't because the vapour has condensed into liquid form. So to me it seems like something is missing from their paper. (Maybe just the calculations.) It also seems like the writer's English is poor so maybe they haven't conveyed their ideas properly and that's why those assumptions seem odd or I'm missing them ... maybe... I dunno.

It'd be nice if they're right tho.

Sort of... wouldn't explain the warming in itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top