Yes, its… well I’m not quite sure what it it, but its wacky, and all the planets are taking part. See here. Page 1 is only silly; but page 2 gets seriously wacky:
The “cause and effect” of these remarkable planetary transformations, we believe, is explained by appealing to a new form of Physics — not yet embraced by most of mainstream science. In fact, this is an “old Physics” — once the centerpiece of 19th Century, pre-quantum reality. At its most fundamental, it is a Physics based on the literal accessibility of “higher dimensions.”
This “higher dimensional/hyperdimensional” description is not just an abstract concept, left over from a few mathematicians a hundred years ago — but is a serious, quantifiable new model, regarding the real domain of energies that invisibly flow into and out of our “three-dimensional” reality… literally creating in the process all of physical matter… as well as its observed, three-dimensional, highly complex interactions.
In addition to its fundamental hyperdimensional component, this “new Physics” is intimately coupled to a modified concept of a spatial “aether.” This “aether,” however, is distinctly different from another old 19th Century concept – an “electromagnetic aether,” proposed then as a medium (analogous to air or water) necessary to carry rhythmic light and radio vibrations across “empty space.” This “new aether” also has no connection to the now popular term “zero point energy” — the current quantum mechanics description of vacuum processes proposed by mainstream physics to generate matter and energy from empty space.
And I *think* they are serious. But I didn’t dare read page 3.
So says Howat et al. in Science (why hasn’t this made it into the blogosphere before? Or did I miss it?). Interestingly, though the most recent change is a decrease: Using satellite-derived surface elevation and velocity data, we find major short-term variations in recent ice discharge and mass-loss at two of Greenland’s largest outlet glaciers. Their combined rate of mass-loss doubled in less than a year in 2004 and then decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates, likely due to fast re-equilibration of calving front geometry following retreat. Total mass-loss is a fraction of concurrent gravity-derived estimates, pointing to an alternative source of loss and the need for high-resolution observations of outlet dynamics and glacier geometry for sea-level rise predictions. This is the first evidence I’ve seen that some of the recent increases in glacier flow may just be fluctuations, though it was always a possibility.
And there appear to be some issues in resolving this with GRACE, or perhaps rather suggestions that these glaciers weren’t producing the loss GRACE saw: Other GRACE observations suggest a 450 Gt ice-loss from south Greenland between May 2004 and April 2006 that the authors mostly attribute to increased discharge from HH and KL (20). While the timing of the increased loss agrees well with the KL/HH acceleration, our results suggest that the combined loss from these glaciers over this period can only account for 13% of this loss. Absent an extensive, but unobserved, acceleration elsewhere, measurements for other south Greenland glaciers suggest a 2000 to 2005 loss increase of roughly 23 Gt/yr (1). This suggests that despite large dynamic changes, much of the 2004-2006 loss estimated from GRACE may be related to surface balance anomalies or other causes.
Incidentally… although the title is fair enough, I wondered if it was interesting that it was titled “changes” rather than “decreases”. But then I discover that the Rignot article on increases last year was titled “Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet” so its fair enough.
[Update: thanks to MW for ref to http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/greenlands-glaciers-take-a-breather/ -W]
Sounds like a dumb idea and it seems to be one. So I looked up the Global Warming entry. Which I suppose you could compare to the wiki version. Unlike the wiki version the Consa one is just about fact free (even a graph of temperature change is obviously to liberal for them) and not really even very funny, though it does contain It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.
Also its servers seem very slow – don’t these conservative folks have any big-money backers? – and has no entry for “stoat”. I got bored waiting for it to search for weasel so I don’t know if it has that.
There is a new website called IPCCfacts. Presumably this is a reflection of the fact that the general public can’t cope with reading the SPM, much less the full report when it emerges. The “facts” section is a bit thin – lets hope there are more than this to come. Resources, of course, under “Global Warming and Climate Science Experts” references RealClimate. But “myths” looked interesting, and oh yes, they can’t resist delving into hurricanes with #2; Myth: The report shows that the overall number of hurricanes is expected to decline, undercutting the argument that global warming produces extreme weather events. But then they are dumb enough to source this to a Pielke blog post when he clearly does no such thing, but to the contrary says Kudos to the scientists involved. Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts.
Unsurprisingly, RP jumps on this and it will be fun to see if IPCCfacts (a) corrects themselves (b) blusters it out, or (c) doesn’t respond. I’m hoping for (a), of course, but guessing (c).
[Update: they have silently done (a) and removed their myth. You’ll find the original at RPs site -W]
Well yes indeed, but in this particular case I’m referring to the funding for the Natural Environment Research Council, which has been cut in order to help pay for the govts failed attempt to rescue the Rover car company; and rescuing the nuclear industry. Or so says the BBC – all I know for sure is that we’ve lost Â£10M. Which is less than some of the other reseach councils.
Coming back from the pub, I find the edit comment Someone added a bunch of none sence. First of all, it’s not a giant beaver the creates the wind. Second, it’s impossible that the people you mentioned knew about beavers. If that makes no sense (and should it?) this is the edit in question.
Kind of puts RP’s problems in perspective 🙂 Although its a possible new avenue for tornado research!
More thought provoking is The Coriolis force does not affect insects or ships since its clearly false; but in the case of insects its negligible. And for supertankers? I’m not sure.