June 18, 2007
-
WELL, IF YOU PUT IT *THAT* WAY...
From an article about some scientists who are really, really sure that the planet is serious danger from our careless human activity, like, I don't know, breathing and stuff. And they think another report has badly underestimated the danger and they explain why with all the transparency of, say, concrete.
'The latest assessment of the IPCC published earlier this year predicts little or no contribution to 21st century sea level from Greenland or Antarctica, but the six scientists dispute this interpretation. "The IPCC analyses and projections do not well account for the nonlinear physics of wet ice sheet disintegration, ice streams and eroding ice shelves, nor are they consistent with the palaeoclimate evidence we have presented for the absence of discernible lag between ice sheet forcing and sea-level rise," the scientists say.'
Thanks for clearing that up, guys.
Comments (8)
Oh that IPCC.... *sigh*
That was clear?
You know, I'm on a campaign to stop all Yoga activity in the U.S. All that deep breathing and stuff is bad for the climate. You notice it's only since Yoga became wildly popular a few years ago that all this global warming stuff has even been an issue. I mean, look at the evidence. I would strongly encourage all readers to throw out their Yoga mat.
Hmm. I like it. So, what they're saying is, "the evidence doesn't match our predictions." I love how they use "paleoclimate." They weren't there.
Oh, you know how they use those ice layers to say "it was so many years ago"? They suppose that each layer of ice is one year. Well, in Greenland, there was this airplane that went down, and it was some 20 years before someone was able to retrieve it. When they dug down to it, there were over 250 layers of ice! Not 20, as in years! Someone hasn't checked over their research very well.
In case anybody's curious, what that gibberish means is, as far as I can make out, the following:
"These six scientist would like to point out the following: ice does not behave in a way that can be consistently modeled using a matrix approach, which approach is also known as setting up huge linear equations. Additionally, current interpretations of old rocks are not consistent with this interpretation of how we're going to get new rocks."
Clear now?
Oh, great, that clears up everything! *rolls eyes laughing*
I once got a paper published under the title "Accumulated Complex Spectral Gratings for Correlation Signal Processing". No joke. Sometimes I think the whole enterprise is really just a game to see how much we can get away with before someone says, "Are you kidding me?"
Hah.
"Ur...hey, maybe if we use twenty-syllable words the general populace won't realize we have No Clue."
"Hey, sweet! Great idea!"
"Nono, you mean 'Exceptionally transcendent abstract hypothetical concept.'"
"Oh...yeah. Bwa ha ha ha ha."
*cough*
Comments are closed.