Everybody had to wear night vision glasses??
Yes, it was just before the end of the world. It was a tremendous setback for Global Warming Thuggees when the world ended. Of course the green movement was very young then, about 500 million years ago, but their methods of decreasing carbon have got us where we are today, where an increase of 5% is far more worrying than was the 1,000% more carbon that we had back then.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
363
Chief Meteorologist Karl Spring of Duluth, Minnesota, who is certified by both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, expressed skepticism of former Vice President Al Gore's climate views. On the day Gore's Nobel Prize was announced in October 2007, Spring declared on KUWS radio, "I wouldn't pay a dime to see [An Inconvenient Truth] for many reasons." Spring then ridiculed Gore. "Politically, he's a left-wing nut. And he does things for other agendas." He added that Gore "takes facts and extrapolates them to such extremes," and he projects "a doomsday scenario." Meteorologist Kyly Underwood joined Spring in dismissing Gore's scientific opinions during on KUWS radio. "We need to be careful about where we get our information on global warming, and this debate unfortunately is driven by politicians." (LINK) & (LINK)
364
Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner of Oxford authored a report prominently featured in the UK journal Nature in October 2007 calling on the UN to "radically rethink climate policy," and they cautioned against a "bigger" version of Kyoto with even more draconian provisions. Prins and Rayner's report in the influential journal bluntly declared "... as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions [Kyoto] has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth." Their report was titled "Time to Ditch Kyoto" and was highlighted in an October 24, 2007 National Post article. "But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change." The report also noted, "Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United States and Australia, for its woes." The report continued, "But the Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job." Prins and Rayner instead urged investment in new technologies and adaptation as the most promising method to deal with climate change. (LINK) Prins and Rayner also strongly dissented from the Kyoto style approaches advocated by the UN IPCC in a December 7, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal. “This week in Bali, Indonesia, [UN] delegates are considering climate policy after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. We will witness a well-known human response to failure. Delegates will insist on doing more of what is not working: in this case more stringent emissions-reduction targets, and timetables involving more countries. A bigger and ‘better’ Kyoto will be a bigger and worse failure,” they wrote. (LINK) Earlier in 2007, Prins and Rayner warned of creating ‘bizarre distortions in public policy” by downplaying adaptation to climate change. “Similarly, non-climate factors are by far the most important drivers of increased risk to tropical disease. For instance, one study found that without taking into account climate change, the global population at risk from malaria would increase by 100% by 2080, whereas the effect of climate change would increase the risk of malaria by at most 7%. Yet tropical disease risk is repeatedly invoked by climate-mitigation advocates as a key reason to curb emissions. In a world where political attention is limited, such distortions reinforce the current neglect of adaptation,” they wrote in February 2007 in the journal Nature. (LINK)
georgeob1 wrote:Really? That even you are so ignorant makes me a little wonder. Or not.[...].. It's kind of peculiar funny, if it wasn't meant so serious by you and yours.)
However, I find it amusing that, in the midst of a very cold winter, the AGW cultists have suddenly decided that "climate change" is a more appropriate term for the snake oil they so prodigiously sell.
On this slide we show the three-dimensional unsteady form of the Navier-Stokes Equations. These equations describe how the velocity, pressure, temperature, and density of a moving fluid are related. The equations were derived independently by G.G. Stokes, in England, and M. Navier, in France, in the early 1800's. The equations are extensions of the Euler Equations and include the effects of viscosity on the flow. These equations are very complex, yet undergraduate engineering students are taught how to derive them in a process very similar to the derivation that we present on the conservation of momentum web page.
The equations are a set of coupled differential equations and could, in theory, be solved for a given flow problem by using methods from calculus. But, in practice, these equations are too difficult to solve analytically. In the past, engineers made further approximations and simplifications to the equation set until they had a group of equations that they could solve. Recently, high speed computers have been used to solve approximations to the equations using a variety of techniques like finite difference, finite volume, finite element, and spectral methods. This area of study is called Computational Fluid Dynamics or CFD.
The Navier-Stokes equations consists of a time-dependent continuity equation for conservation of mass, three time-dependent conservation of momentum equations and a time-dependent conservation of energy equation. There are four independent variables in the problem, the x, y, and z spatial coordinates of some domain, and the time t. There are six dependent variables; the pressure p, density r, and temperature T (which is contained in the energy equation through the total energy Et) and three components of the velocity vector; the u component is in the x direction, the v component is in the y direction, and the w component is in the z direction, All of the dependent variables are functions of all four independent variables. The differential equations are therefore partial differential equations and not the ordinary differential equations that you study in a beginning calculus class.
