Friday, January 11, 2008

No Such Luck


For those of us who like to watch shit go BOOM! in the heavens, the announcement that

An asteroid nearing Mars will not crash into the planet later this month...

...is surely sad news. Ah well! To cheer people up, here's a youtube clip portraying what would happen if a Japan-sized space rock ever struck the Earth again. The narration is in Japanese.

24 comments:

Frances said...

Speaking of Mars, I gather that increasing temperatures have been detected on Mars where human activity can hardly be blamed. Man-made carbon emissions—however large or undesirable—need to be set in context next to the immense power of the sun, the influence of the oceans, clouds and other forces of nature that have been impacting the earth for millions of years.

Something to think about folks.

Mike said...

frances, I invite you to go to RealClimate.org and see how actual climate scientists have thoroughly debunked that little talking point.

bigcitylib said...

Don't try and think, Frances, just watch the exploding planet.

Frances said...

The journal American Scientist recently published a study on the melting glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro. The study confirms that air temperature around the glacier continues to be below freezing, so it is not melting because of global warming. Instead, the melt pattern of the glacier is consistent with the effect of direct radiant heat from the sun.

Human activity can't be blamed for that.

Ti-Guy said...

Enough "Biff." Can the anonymii.

Anonymous said...

Just wait. Al Gore will relabel that and tell us this is 'proof' of what will happen to Earth unless we buy carbon credits from his company, because the computer models tell us so.

Anonymous said...

RealClimate.org? You're joking, right?

Catelli said...

Wow. I feel like I spent an hour on Wikipedia. From asteroid near-miss of Mars to glacial melt on Mount Kilimanjaro.

What was the topic again? Oh yeah.

BCL I agree, AWWW DAMN! I wanted things to go boom! (Kinda like Frances's brain did a while back.)

Anonymous said...

RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists (who are currently making an absolute KILLING in research money as long as we keep playing this same doom and gloom tune.)

Ti-Guy said...

who are currently making an absolute KILLING in research money as long as we keep playing this same doom and gloom tune.

Well, your retarded assertions aren't helping to alleviate the sense of doom I'm feeling. Climate change disasters pale in comparison to the despondency I feel that our advanced society is churning out cretins like you.

Anonymous said...

First, I loved the video. However I think the object they were showing was significantly larger than the dinosaur killer. Just looking at the image over land and over the city, it looked to be more than 10 km diameter.

I just didn;t want anyone to worry needlessly ;-)

John

bigcitylib said...

John,

You're right. It turns out the rock in this picture is supposed to be the size of Japan. I've changed the text.

lenny said...

Biff,

Here's a tip: Assuming that it's not a pathological condition beyond your control, stop lying. It's really not doing you any good. While the claim that AGW isn't responsible for the melting on Kilimanjaro may have merit, American Scientist is not a science journal, and what they published was not a study.

So let's see what your post might have looked like:

Philip Mote and Georg Kaser, both authors of the IPCC report and part of the consensus on climate change, wrote a recent article in American Scientist claiming that global warming, while responsible for the melting of most of the world's glaciers, is not responsible for the melting on Kilimanjaro.

By the way, seeing as you accept the work of Mote and Kaser unquestioningly, you might be interested in Kaser's work demonstrating warming's responsibility for the vast majority of tropical glacier melting, or Mote's work on warming's effect on snowpack and water supplies in the Pacific Northwest.

Ti-Guy said...

Do you think Biff cares that he's lying? He's probably being paid by the CPC to lie. They all lie....that's all they're good at.

...I think they learn it at their Evangelical Churches.

Frances said...

Lenny, that said, temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic. Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations.

Ti-guy, if the Liberals changed their position on AGW you'd change along with them. You may wish to watch on the sidelines and let the adults talk amongst themselves.

lenny said...

"Lenny, that said, temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic."

Shorter Biff: "Ok, sure I'm dishonest. But the important thing to remember isn't that 99% of glaciers are shrinking, it's that 1% aren't and I can name them all."

"Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations."

Particular locations like Greenland? This graph illustrates your 'point':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Biff(or insert any denier automaton) 1925: "Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1915 according to the statistics."

Biff 1980: "Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1973 according to the statistics."

Biff 1989: "Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1983 according to the statistics."

Biff 1994: "Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1990 according to the statistics."

repeat ad infinitum

Frances said...

Well, but do you disagree that significant evidence suggests that average temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade during the last century?

There is no doubt that large-scale industrial activities can have an adverse impact in particular locations, as in the larger Chinese cities. But when averaged out across the globe, it is difficult to see this being the main culprit for any overall global warming, let alone bringing us to the verge of catastrophe.

Again, we are dealing with a very imprecise science here, whatever the computer models might suggest. There are so many other variables.

frances said...

I believe we have to look at the evidence regarding AGW to see where we stand, we don't need to fudge facts, or play with statistics or engage in fear-mongering. Science should be dispassionate as religion often isn't.

frances said...

Lenny, before you and ti-guy level the charge of liar you may want to consider what a British court thought of that oracle of AGW aka Al "th bore" Gore.

The day before he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the English high court ruled that DVDs of Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth could not be shown in schools without teachers providing additional materials to correct nine "significant errors" in the film.

Among them were claims that Pacific atolls are being evacuated because of rising sea levels and that polar bears are drowning because they have to swim up to 60 miles to find ice. The court found there is "no evidence" to support either claim. Polar bears have drowned in recent times, but because of storms, not melting ice.

Should we rename the pseudo-documentary Convenient Bullshit?

lenny said...

You can all just tirelessly recycle the same lies, distortions, etc., over and over, can't you. Of course when you get to the end you'll just start back up again with the same worn-out and discredited crapola that you've already seen refuted countless times.


"Lenny, before you and ti-guy level the charge of liar..."

Too late.

frances said...

Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate.

Lighten up Lenny, the world aint' gonna end soon.

I deal in facts, not hysteria. You deal in the opposite with ad hominen attacks thrown in for good measure.

lenny said...

Lying and cherry picking isn't 'dealing in facts', and pointing it out is not an 'ad hominem' attack.

frances said...

Lenny, the world hasn't been getting hotter for seven years now. Not only no AGW but no GW at all.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires snow fell for the first time since the year 1918 ... In Peru, 200 people died from cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

You and your buddy Jay need to get a life. You're fanatics who can't deal in facts.

lenny said...

"Lenny, the world hasn't been getting hotter for seven years now. Not only no AGW but no GW at all."

Recycling already, are you? See my post @ 8:14pm.