Well, at least they established a standard early on…
Lest you think you have to drill down to find this, here’s the front page:
link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Well, at least they established a standard early on…
Lest you think you have to drill down to find this, here’s the front page:
link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
When a new climate change idea appears it is recognised as fraudulent crap.
I think this new mag plans to announce that climate changes. Whoopee !!
Sometimes I like putting my agenda in front of the facts, but enough about closing time…
Free straitjacket with every issue?
Another enironmentalist who spends his time flying around the world.
Check out the youtube video where Mark Hertsgaard and friends try to ambush Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma. Classic, Inhofe takes him to school. Then check out Hertsgaard’s highly edited video of the same interview. That’s everyting you’ll need to know about this clown Hertsgaard.
I don’t see the problem at all. So there’s an article in a climate change journal saying that preparing for climate woes should be a priority. Is this newsworthy? “In an unrelated news, a dog bit a man!” Jk aside, either you didn’t read the article, and just saw the “graphic” and thought it was “alarmist”, or I just don’t understand your point.
You should think more about this. This line of thought that we should “adapt” to climate change has really been taboo, and when people like Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing, he was booed. It’s really a good idea, since it envolves investment on the things that will protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts. This is good investment, *independently of climatic predictions of how the planet will warm up or not*, since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake. The latter case is interesting, since japanese did prepare themselves extensively against earthquakes and have perhaps avoided the deaths of millions.
So, what gives? What’s your point?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=senator+inhofe+ambush&aq=f
The front page invokes 1 “suggests”, 3 “mays”, 2 “coulds” and 1 “will likely”.
Issue 1, and Speculation already leads by Science by a touchdown. This could get ugly….
Well we’re off to a cold start. The cold pool here over the Bay Area resulted in some twisters this AM. Confirmed F1 in Santa Rosa, waterspout off the Sunset District … and … a wall cloud and possible F0 where I was sitting a bit after 11AM …
(Curly) aahhyaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaah!(/Curly)
Just glad to be alive on this Friday afternoon.
Nature bats last … using a Louisville Slugger born of the Stars.
How many ways can you dress up cows doings, in Nature?
Thanks for pointing out this valuable resource, which consists of short articles on the subject of climate change, describing work that is behind a paywall.
There is an interesting review of Mark Hertsgaard’s book on adapting to climate change.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1047.html
The reviewer said that while there was a lot of valuable information on how people were actually adapting to climate change, Hertsgaard did not seem to recognize the uncertainty associated with the predictions of dire consequences that he quoted.
There is also another article which summarizes a recent paper which points out that the Arctic Sea Ice is not going to collapse catastrophically.
This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.
What are “hayfever miserys”? One of life’s miseries is trying to understand what illiterates mean when they write.:-)
My goodness, I am dumbfounded. No wonder it is free.
Well, nothing surprised me in the article titles given the audience the magazine is going after. The CAGW crowd will be able to scare themselves silly…
eadler says:
March 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.
You better read the letter on agriculture. We’ve discussed this before. An averaged global temperature increase of one degree will not harm corn yields, since Gisstemp shows unequivocably it occurs in winter, at night.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, Leif. You have a an insidious sadistic streak.
eadler says:
March 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.
Check your green tinted goggles, dude. This magazine’s very existence is testament to the overwhelming, unhinged, natural world hating, bias of Nature Inc. (God, I hope they aren’t government funded)
And if you think this is sarcasm, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
That one article on Arctic sea ice is just the con man bowing to the fact that there are some natural phenomena so large (like for instance 100,000 square miles of two and a half meters thick multi year sea ice) that even Hansen and Jones can’t fudge numbers enough to cover it up.
Too many satellites for them to ink stroke it back into line with the narrative.
I’m having a hard time adjusting to 1/2 a degree…
…mainly because I can’t find it
Spelling errors not withstanding, it sure is well constructed and purty.
The best webzine corporate welfare money can buy. Nothing but the best for our con men.
Luis Dias says:
March 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm
You should think more about this. This line of thought that we should “adapt” to climate change has really been taboo, and when people like Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing, he was booed. It’s really a good idea, since it envolves investment on the things that will protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts. This is good investment, *independently of climatic predictions of how the planet will warm up or not*, since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake. The latter case is interesting, since japanese did prepare themselves extensively against earthquakes and have perhaps avoided the deaths of millions.
So, what gives? What’s your point?
====================================================
Luis, I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I consider it more of the same alarmist tripe with a different window dressing.
As far as adapting to our ever changing environment, humanity doesn’t need an advocate for such a venture. Humanity has done this since the dawn of time. Moreover, while adapting is fine, it shouldn’t proactively attempted under false assumptions. For instance, what if in the year 2000, it would have been assumed the next decade would increase in temps. And that the same assumptions about crops and heat as posited by this site were considered and steps undertaken to mitigate the heat?
The result, at best, would have been no effect on crop yields and a waste of time and valuable resources,……. such as money. If widely adopted, it would have created a further upward pressure on crop prices. ………. I think we can all see where that we leave us today.
BTW, the most recent decadal temps trends?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend
and in case we’re worried that one one data set is showing this,
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image.png
UAH will soon join the fray, leaving GISS (excuse the expression) out in the cold.
I’ve registered. Under my real name even. That’s because I understand what’s going on here, which apparently the rest of you do not.
Look, on the front page we’ve got a book called “Hot,” which accepts as a given that it’s getting hotter. Backing this up is a “Research Highlight” which informs us that this increase in heat will also “substantially decrease the duration and thickness of wintertime ice cover on many North American lakes.
But in another “Research Highlight,” we are told, “The Arctic is unlikely to experience sudden loss of sea ice during the twenty-first century.”
Very selective heat.
Not surprising, however, since apparently plants are equally selective. A separate “Research Highlight” claims, “Large-scale farming of biofuel crops in the US could significantly cool the local climate.” This, according to the article, is because plants grown for biofuel are more cooling than plants grown for food.
Don’t you get it? For crying out loud, guys! This is being done by The Onion! It was probably supposed to be launched on April 1, but someone got ahead of schedule.
Like I said, I’m registered. I love The Onion. They’re brilliant.
Adaption is the only effort in which we should engage. The fact that global warming is supposed to raise the winter nightly lows, with a diminishing affect as you move from the poles to the equator, means that adaption would be easy in that we simply have to wear lighter jackets early in the morning. Even slow sea level rises have been fought for hundreds of years. We already know how and when to adapt without having to read some journalist’s book. Adaption is overblown as an issue.
The feature on how “large-scale farming of biofuel crops in the US could significantly cool the local climate” is ridiculous when we consider the insanity of burning food. Some suggest that burning a useful commodity like oil is insane, but burning food is not a better alternative.
I am glad that they did include recent research on how the arctic is unlikely to see a sudden drop in sea ice levels, but it seems odd that they are finally getting around to what others have been saying all along. I can only hope that the other topics they cover will eventually get updated to more clear thinking like this sea ice issue. The fact that their sea ice story is balanced out with a silly lake ice story does not bode well for their insight and openness to real data. While I don’t know the time frame for the sea ice data, I wonder if they mention thickening ice over the next 20 to 30 years before it starts to thin again.
What takes the cake for me is the mitigation junk. They continue to ignore that we are not the primary cause of the last 300 years of warming. Indeed, we have not been the primary cause of the last 30 years of ‘warming.’ Sadly, I don’t know how long it will take them to see the light. Until then, it will not be well balanced.
John M Reynolds
“While I don’t know the time frame for the sea ice data, … ” — should be lake ice date. Sorry. — John M Reynolds
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/growth-of-thick-ice-since-2008/
There is also another article which summarizes a recent paper which [doesn’t] point out that the Arctic Sea Ice
is not going to collapse catastrophicallyhas already recovered despite the uncorrected fear mongering hype we have been deluged with the last five years. (fixed)This online magazine
seems wellis a testament to the un balanced nature of today’s climate science debate. The last thing we needed was another Treehugger. com clone.The sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site are well deserved.
Climate changes??? When did this happen? Can I get insurance to cover my adaptation? Are my costs tax deductible? Or maybe I can get a grant? I obviously need this magazine to fill my void!