abonnement Unibet Coolblue
  dinsdag 26 december 2006 @ 00:14:44 #1
51260 theDax
Breek los en leef
pi_44741742
Ik las laatst iets van een paar mensen die zeiden dat het broeikas effect een hoax is.
Beetje kort door de bocht vind ik, dus ik heb maar even op de site gekeken van het WMO (www.wmo.ch)
en heb daarom copy/paste ik dit maar.


***************
WMO Statement on the Status of the global Climate in 2006

Embargo 17:00 GMT 14 December, 2006

GENEVA, 14 December (WMO) – The global mean surface temperature in 2006 is currently estimated to be + 0.42°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C/57.2°F), according to the records maintained by Members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The year 2006 is currently estimated to be the sixth warmest year on record. Final figures will not be released until March 2007.

Averaged separately for both hemispheres, 2006 surface temperatures for the northern hemisphere (0.58°C above 30-year mean of 14.6°C/58.28°F) are likely to be the fourth warmest and for the southern hemisphere (0.26°C above 30-year mean of 13.4°C/56.12°F), the seventh warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the present.

Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen approximately 0.7°C. But this rise has not been continuous. Since 1976, the global average temperature has risen sharply, at 0.18°C per decade. In the northern and southern hemispheres, the period 1997-2006 averaged 0.53°C and 0.27°C above the 1961-1990 mean, respectively.

Regional temperature anomalies

The beginning of 2006 was unusually mild in large parts of North America and the western European Arctic islands, though there were harsh winter conditions in Asia, the Russian Federation and parts of eastern Europe. Canada experienced its mildest winter and spring on record, the USA its warmest January-September on record and the monthly temperatures in the Arctic island of Spitsbergen (Svalbard Lufthavn) for January and April included new highs with anomalies of +12.6°C and +12.2°C, respectively.

Persistent extreme heat affected much of eastern Australia from late December 2005 until early March with many records being set (e.g. second hottest day on record in Sydney with 44.2°C/111.6°F on 1 January). Spring 2006 (September-November) was Australia’s warmest since seasonal records were first compiled in 1950. Heat waves were also registered in Brazil from January until March (e.g. 44.6°C/112.3°F in Bom Jesus on 31 January – one of the highest temperatures ever recorded in Brazil).

Several parts of Europe and the USA experienced heat waves with record temperatures in July and August. Air temperatures in many parts of the USA reached 40°C/104°F or more. The July European-average land-surface air temperature was the warmest on record at 2.7°C above the climatological normal.

Autumn 2006 (September-November) was exceptional in large parts of Europe at more than 3°C warmer than the climatological normal from the north side of the Alps to southern Norway. In many countries it was the warmest autumn since official measurements began: records in central England go back to 1659 (1706 in The Netherlands and 1768 in Denmark).

Prolonged drought in some regions

Long-term drought continued in parts of the Greater Horn of Africa including parts of Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and the United Republic of Tanzania. At least 11 million people were affected by food shortages; Somalia was hit by the worst drought in a decade.

For many areas in Australia, the lack of adequate rainfall in 2006 added to significant longer-term dry conditions, with large regions having experienced little recovery from the droughts of 2002-2003 and 1997-1998. Dry conditions have now persisted for 5 to 10 years in some areas and in south-west Western Australia for around 30 years.

Across the USA, moderate-to-exceptional drought persisted throughout parts of the south-west desert and eastward through the southern plains, also developing in areas west of the Great Lakes. Drought and anomalous warmth contributed to a record wildfire season for the USA, with more than 3.8 million hectares burned through early December. Drought in the south of Brazil caused significant damage to agriculture in the early part of the year with losses of about 11 per cent estimated for the soybean crop yield alone.

Severe drought conditions also affected China. Millions of hectares of crops were damaged in Sichuan province during summer and in eastern China in autumn. Significant economic losses as well as severe shortages in drinking water were other consequences.

Heavy precipitation and flooding

As the 2005/2006 rainy season was ending, most countries in southern Africa were experiencing satisfactory rainfall during the first quarter of 2006. In northern Africa, floods were recorded in Morocco and Algeria during 2006 causing infrastructure damage and some casualties. Rare heavy rainfall in the Sahara Desert region of Tindouf produced severe flooding in February damaging 70 per cent of food stocks and displacing 60 000 people. In Bilma, Niger, the highest rainfall since 1923 affected nearly 50 000 people throughout August. In the same month, the most extensive precipitation in 50 years brought significant agricultural losses to the region of Zinder, Niger. Heavy rain also caused devastating floods in Ethiopia in August, claiming more than 600 lives. Some of the worst floods occurred in Dire Dawa and along the swollen Omo River. Again in October and November, the Great Horn of Africa countries experienced heavy rainfall associated with severe flooding. The worst hit areas were in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. Somalia is undergoing its worst flooding in recent history; some places have received more than six times their average monthly rainfall and hundreds of thousands of people have been affected. This year’s floods are said to be the worst in 50 years in the Great Horn of Africa region. The heavy rains followed a period of long-lasting drought and the dry ground was unable to soak up large amounts of rainfall.

Heavy rainfall in Bolivia and Equador in the first months of the year caused severe floods and landslides with tens of thousands of people affected. Torrential rainfall in Suriname during early May produced the country’s worst disaster in recent times.

After 500 mm of torrential rainfall during a five-day period in February, a large-scale landslide occurred in Leyte Island, the Philippines with more than 1 000 casualties. Although close to average in total rainfall, the Indian monsoon season brought many heavy rainfall events with the highest rainfall in 24-hours ever recorded in several locations.

Only months after the destructive summer flooding in eastern Europe in 2005, heavy rainfall and snowmelt produced extensive flooding along the River Danube in April and the river reached its highest level in more than a century. Areas of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Serbia were the hardest hit with hundreds of thousands of hectares inundated and tens of thousands of people affected.

Persistent and heavy rainfall during 10-15 May brought historic flooding to New England (USA), described as the worst in 70 years in some areas. Across the US mid-Atlantic and north-east, exceptionally heavy rainfall occurred in June. Numerous daily and monthly records were set and the rainfall caused widespread flooding which forced the evacuation of some 200 000 people. Vancouver in Canada experienced its wettest month ever in November with 351 mm, nearly twice the average monthly accumulation.

Development of moderate El Niño in late 2006

Conditions in the equatorial Pacific from December 2005 until the first quarter of 2006 showed some patterns typically associated with La Niña events. These however, did not lead to a basin-wide La Niña and, during April, even weak La Niña conditions dissipated. Over the second quarter of 2006, the majority of atmospheric and oceanic indicators reflected neutral conditions but, in August, conditions in the central and western equatorial Pacific started resembling typical early stages of an El Niño event (see WMO Press Release 765). By the end of the year, positive sea-surface temperature anomalies were established across the tropical Pacific basin. The El Niño event is expected by global consensus to continue at least into the first quarter of 2007.

Deadly typhoons in south-east Asia

In the north-west Pacific, 22 tropical cyclones developed (average 27), 14 of which classified as typhoons. Typhoons Chanchu, Prapiroon, Kaemi, Saomai, Xangsane, Cimaron and tropical storm Bilis brought deaths, casualties and severe damage to the region. Landed tropical cyclones caused more than 1 000 fatalities and economic losses of US $ 10 billion in China, which made 2006 the severest year in a decade. Typhoon Durian affected some 1.5 million people in the Philippines in November/December 2006, claiming more than 500 lives with hundreds still missing.
During the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, nine named tropical storms developed (average: ten). Five of the named storms were hurricanes (average six) and two of those were “major” hurricanes (category three or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale). In the eastern North Pacific 19 named storms developed, which is well above the average of 16; eleven reached hurricane strength of which six attained “major” status.

Twelve tropical cyclones developed in the Australian Basin, two more than the long-term average. Tropical cyclone Larry was the most intense at landfall in Queensland since 1918, destroying 80-90 per cent of the Australian banana crop.


Ozone depletion in the Antarctic and Arctic

On 25 September, the maximum area of the 2006 ozone hole over the Antarctic was recorded at 29.5 million km², slightly larger than the previous record area of 29.4 million km² reached in September 2000. These values are so similar that the ozone holes of these two years could be judged of equal size. The size and persistence of the 2006 ozone hole area with its ozone mass deficit of 40.8 megatonnes (also a record) can be explained by the continuing presence of near-peak levels of ozone-depleting substances in combination with a particularly cold stratospheric winter. Low temperatures in the first part of January prompted a 20 per cent loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic in 2006 (see WMO Press Release 760). Milder temperatures from late January precluded the large ozone loss seen in 2005.

Arctic sea-ice decline continues

The year 2006 continues the pattern of sharply decreasing Arctic sea ice. The average sea-ice extent for the entire month of September was 5.9 million km², the second lowest on record missing the 2005 record by 340 000 km². Including 2006, the September rate of sea ice decline is now approximately -8.59% per decade, or 60 421 km² per year.

Information sources

This preliminary information for 2006 is based on observations up to the end of November from networks of land-based weather stations, ships and buoys. The data are collected and disseminated on a continuing basis by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services of WMO Members. However, the declining state of some observational platforms in some parts of the world is of concern.

It should be noted that, following established practice, WMO’s global temperature analyses are based on two different datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK. The other is maintained by the US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Results from these two datasets are comparable: both indicate that 2006 is likely to be the sixth warmest year globally.

More extensive updated information will be made available in the annual WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2006, to be published in early March 2007.

This is a joint Press Release issued in collaboration with the Hadley Centre of the Met Office, UK, the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK and in the USA: NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre, National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service and NOAA’s National Weather Service. Other contributors are WMO Member countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Denmark, India, Ireland, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland. The African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD) also contributed.


WMO is the United Nations' authoritative voice on weather, climate and water


************


For more information please contact:

Mr Mark Oliver, Press Officer, Communications and Public Affairs Office, World Meteorological Organization. Tel: +41 (0)22 730 84 17, E-mail: moliver@wmo.int
Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Communications and Public Affairs, WMO.
Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15. Mobile: +41 79 406 47 30. E-mail: cpa@wmo.int
Internet websites: http://www.wmo.int
Daxydelict
pi_44742055
Waarom zouden we ons druk maken over een nietig broeikas-effect, verderop in het heelal gaan gehele beschavingen ten onder door verwoestende expansies van sterren.
pi_44742090
Kan je het even vertalen?
pi_44742558
Het broeikaseffect is misschien overdreven. Doet er ook niet toe. Temperaturen stijgen enorm, tot ver buiten de statistische kansen. Of we beleven stomtoevallig een periode waartoe de kans kleiner was om een meteoriet met goud in je tuin te vinden, de staatsloterij te winnen en een elfstedentocht op TV te zien. Ja, het zou kunnen. Maar het is zeer onwaarschijnlijk.

Klimaatwetenschappen zijn veel te complex om 'revolutionaire' uitspraken te doen. Echt pertinente onzin. Geconstateerd wordt dat de temperaturen stijgen, plus alle te verwachten side effects. Hoe en waarom is onderwerp van onderzoek. Dat global warming geen onzin is is iets dat iedereen boven de 35 zal kunnen beamen, ook zonder academische titel. De jongere generatie zal het gek vinden, maar tot pakweg 1990 hadden we kutzomers met af en toe wat beter weer. Je was al blij met een weekje 25+. Om de zoveel jaar hadden we ook 'echte' winters hier. Geen sneeuwbuien maar aanhoudende diepvries met bakken sneeuw. Intussen smelt Groenland. Lapland heeft deels een witte kerst. De Noordpool is met flinke snelheid eeuwenoud ijs aan het verliezen. Gletsjers verdwijnen. Plankton sterft af. Dat is de realiteit. Of het nu broeikas is of iets anders.

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Keromane op 26-12-2006 00:49:07 (typo *geen* onzin) ]
pi_44745131
quote:
We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population. "My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Prof Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world's leading climate scientists. "We are talking about billions of people."

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6°C.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of 6°C. But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control. "We're going to be in a situation, unless we act, where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. That means we'll get reduced cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature rise of 10°C by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable. That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/t(...)g_prog_summary.shtml
pleased to meet you
pi_44745363
Wat een zinloos artikel (OP) om als argument aan te dragen. Het woord broekaseffect wordt nergens genoemd. Het is een opsomming met cijfers en feiten over temperatuur, neerslag en stormen. Leg me even uit hoe je daaruit afleidt dat het broekaseffect wel degelijk bestaat?

Getallen over 5, 10 of zelfs 100 jaar zeggen niets. Een zogenaamd broeikaseffect valt niet te meten in zo'n korte tijd. Als je kijkt naar de afgelopen miljoenen jaren, dan zijn er regelmatig perioden geweest waar het warm, koud of nat was. Grote temperatuurverschillen kwamen veelvuldig voor en door hel en verdoemenis te schreeuwen over de CO2 die de mens in de atmosfeer brengt is nogal lachwekkend gezien de nietige tijdspanne en gebrek aan enig bewijs van eventuele gevolgen.
"Welfare culture is bad not just because, as in Europe, it's bankrupting the state, but because it enfeebles the citizenry, it erodes self-reliance and resourcefulness."
-Mark Steyn
pi_44746349
quote:
Op dinsdag 26 december 2006 00:46 schreef Keromane het volgende:
De Noordpool is met flinke snelheid eeuwenoud ijs aan het verliezen. Gletsjers verdwijnen. Plankton sterft af. Dat is de realiteit. Of het nu broeikas is of iets anders.
en de Zuidpool ?
Minister Cramer: "Milieuvervuiling mag zolang je maar betaalt."
Minister Cramer: "Mensheid in 2100 grotendeels verdwenen."
Minister Cramer: "In 2050 40% van alle dier- en plantensoorten uitgestorven."
pi_44747792
Lijkt me wel interessant, dat Zuidpool nog verder wegsmelt.

Wanneer Zuidpool weggesmolten is, hebben we een gigantische grondoppervlakte tot ons beschikking. In ieder geval wel 1/3e deel van alle oppervlaktes (dus zonder oceanen) op de Aarde. .
  dinsdag 26 december 2006 @ 12:24:44 #9
43624 Martijn_77
It was a good year
pi_44747861
quote:
Op dinsdag 26 december 2006 04:20 schreef StefanP het volgende:
Wat een zinloos artikel (OP) om als argument aan te dragen. Het woord broekaseffect wordt nergens genoemd. Het is een opsomming met cijfers en feiten over temperatuur, neerslag en stormen. Leg me even uit hoe je daaruit afleidt dat het broekaseffect wel degelijk bestaat?
Idd, daar ben ik ook wel erg benieuwd naar.
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted
Take my advice ... I don't use it anyway...
Een goede Fok! Search
Een goede Fok! Search
pi_44748840
quote:
Op dinsdag 26 december 2006 10:48 schreef kawotski het volgende:

[..]

en de Zuidpool ?
Daar wordt het ook warmer.

Gedeeltelijk, kennelijk.
quote:
* Ice makes polar climate sensitive by introducting a strong positive feedback loop.
* Melting of continental Antarctic ice could contribute to global sea level rise.
* Climate models predict more snowfall than ice melting during the next 50 years, but models are not good enough for them to be confident about the prediction.
* Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall.
* There is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.
* The central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3°C. The cause is not known.
* Changes have occurred in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica.

This image shows trends in skin temperatures—temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land or sea surface—of Antarctica from 1982 to 2004. Red indicates areas where temperatures generally increased during that period, and blue shows where temperatures predominantly decreased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica

[ Bericht 70% gewijzigd door Monidique op 26-12-2006 13:47:30 ]
pi_44748903
Ach, misschien is het gewoon onvermijdbaar.
En als we gaan dan gaan we in elk geval met z'n allen. Dat is toch ook wel mooi ergens.
Wie dit leest is gek
  dinsdag 26 december 2006 @ 19:00:18 #12
42816 peaceman
Peace Man! ofzo...
pi_44751712
quote:
Op dinsdag 26 december 2006 00:28 schreef Stoomhamer het volgende:
Waarom zouden we ons druk maken over een nietig broeikas-effect, verderop in het heelal gaan gehele beschavingen ten onder door verwoestende expansies van sterren.
Zo, da's nieuw... ik wist niet dat het bestaan van andere beschavingen in het heelal al bevestigd was.....
pi_44757743
Nog erger dan zure regen en El Nino bij elkaar!
  woensdag 27 december 2006 @ 17:45:51 #14
43624 Martijn_77
It was a good year
pi_44768595
quote:
Op dinsdag 26 december 2006 23:53 schreef Evil_Jur het volgende:
Nog erger dan zure regen en El Nino bij elkaar!
O, ja zure regen daar hoor je ook niemand meer over. Zo dat over een paar jaar ook zo zijn met het broeikas effect?
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted
Take my advice ... I don't use it anyway...
Een goede Fok! Search
Een goede Fok! Search
  Overall beste user 2022 woensdag 27 december 2006 @ 17:54:39 #15
3928 Ulx
you aint no punk you punk
pi_44768847
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 17:45 schreef Martijn_77 het volgende:

[..]

O, ja zure regen daar hoor je ook niemand meer over. Zo dat over een paar jaar ook zo zijn met het broeikas effect?
Tegen zure regen nam men flink wat maatregelen.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
pi_44768970
Er wordt in ieder geval goed verdiend aan de uitvinding van het broeikaseffekt.
de tijd is te kort om te weten dat dat effekt er ook werkelijk is of dat we in een natuurlijk proces zitten.
Dit bericht is goedgekeurd door de NSA en de NVD en andere opsporingsdiensten.
pi_44769025
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 17:59 schreef longinus het volgende:
Er wordt in ieder geval goed verdiend aan de uitvinding van het broeikaseffekt.
de tijd is te kort om te weten dat dat effekt er ook werkelijk is of dat we in een natuurlijk proces zitten.
Waar baseer je dat op?
pi_44769045
Dat de aarde momenteel langzaam aan het opwarmen is, is een feit. Maar betrouwbare meteorologische data wordt nog niet zo zeer lang vastgelegd. Fahrenheit is geboren in 1686, zijn temperatuur schaal zal dus niet veel eerder dan de vroege 16e eeuw in gebruik zijn genomen. Volgens mij moeten weerkundigen temperaturen van dáárvoor schatten op basis van secundaire gegevens.

Er is een theorie dat de aardopwarming niet door uitlaatgassen wordt veroorzaakt, maar dat het een periodiek verschijnsel is, een cyclus van vele decennia. En nog niet concreet is vastgelegd in de boeken omdat er nog niet lang genoeg betrouwbare observaties worden gedaan.
pi_44769330
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 17:54 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Tegen zure regen nam men flink wat maatregelen.
Nogal een treffende vergelijking, inderdaad.
pi_44771036
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 18:00 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

Waar baseer je dat op?
Op meerdere documantaires en op twijfels van wetenschapers die het broeikaseffekt bestuderen.
Dit bericht is goedgekeurd door de NSA en de NVD en andere opsporingsdiensten.
pi_44771143
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 19:08 schreef longinus het volgende:

[..]

Op meerdere documantaires en op twijfels van wetenschapers die het broeikaseffekt bestuderen.
Waaruit blijkt dat "de tijd [...] te kort [is] om te weten dat dat effekt er ook werkelijk is of dat we in een natuurlijk proces zitten"? En elke tijd is dat en wanneer kunnen we het wel weten? Over vijf jaar, of vijftig, of vijfhonderd en waarom?
pi_44771231
Ik doe nog steeds mijn jas aan en een muts op als ik naar buiten ga dus die opwarming valt best wel mee...
Gelukkig zonder haar
pi_44771825
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 19:11 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

Waaruit blijkt dat "de tijd [...] te kort [is] om te weten dat dat effekt er ook werkelijk is of dat we in een natuurlijk proces zitten"? En elke tijd is dat en wanneer kunnen we het wel weten? Over vijf jaar, of vijftig, of vijfhonderd en waarom?
Omdat dit soort patronen en cycli veel langer kunnen duren dan de slordige 2 tot 3 eeuwen dat we nu weerstatistieken bijhouden. Of in iedergeval zo lang dat we nog niet genoeg cycli doorlopen om te kunnen spreken van een vast patroon. Ik heb in mijn aardrijkskunde lessen altijd geleerd dat een 'gemmidddeld klimaat' wordt gemeten over minstens 30 jaar bijvoorbeeld.
  woensdag 27 december 2006 @ 19:55:49 #24
137134 Iblardi
Non semper idem
pi_44772668
quote:
Op dinsdag 26 december 2006 12:20 schreef K33T het volgende:
Lijkt me wel interessant, dat Zuidpool nog verder wegsmelt.

Wanneer Zuidpool weggesmolten is, hebben we een gigantische grondoppervlakte tot ons beschikking. In ieder geval wel 1/3e deel van alle oppervlaktes (dus zonder oceanen) op de Aarde. .
Dat lijkt misschien zo bij een Mercatorprojectie. Deze afbeelding geeft een betere indruk van de grootte (links dus):



Zie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents#Extent_of_continents.
pi_44772904
quote:
Op woensdag 27 december 2006 17:45 schreef Martijn_77 het volgende:

[..]

O, ja zure regen daar hoor je ook niemand meer over. Zo dat over een paar jaar ook zo zijn met het broeikas effect?
Eerst was het zure regen. Toen het broeikas effect. Tegenwoordig is het modewoord "fijnstof".
/ ¦ ¦ / ¦ ¦
abonnement Unibet Coolblue
Forum Opties
Forumhop:
Hop naar:
(afkorting, bv 'KLB')