The latest example comes from the University of Waterloo
If the globe continues to warm at its current rate — without taking measures to mitigate climate change — only six out of the last 19 locations that hosted the winter games will be cold enough to hold them by the end of the century, according to the report conducted by the University of Waterloo and Austria's Management Center at Innsbruck.Now let us examine that statement for a moment. The IPCC (the UN's official climate change agency) says that global temperatures haven't changed for 15 years. Therefore If the globe continues to warm at its current rate, it will be around the same temperature as it is today.
Researchers looked at two scenarios to formulate global warming projections: one that follows a low-emissions trajectory and another with high-emissions.
The study uses the latest report by the United Nation's estimates on global climate change and data from the World Meteorological Organization to access future greenhouse gas emissions effects on snow depth and temperatures at a given location.
The probability that the daily minimum temperature at the competition would stay below freezing — or zero degrees celsius — and the probability that at least 30 centimeters of snow can be maintained at higher elevations determines whether a country can host the winter games.
“Weather has challenged the Winter Olympics for years,” Daniel Scott of the University of Waterloo and co-author of the study told CBC News.
“Unfortunately, under the warmer scenarios, far fewer places that have hosted the games in the past would still be able to do so.
Under the low emissions scenario, Sochi, Russia, the host of this year's games, would not make the cut by 2050.
And under a high emissions scenario, Squaw Valley, Calif., which held the games in 1960 would not have a reliable climate by 2050.How about a little consistency guys? By talking out of both sides of their mouths, the global warming theorists are making it too easy.
1 comment:
I agree that the way the statement reads is a little confusing. It seems to me that what he meant was this: Women—contrary to the self-evident condescending opinion of Democrats—are not helpless baby factories, unable to control their libidos. On the contrary they're far more than that. Women need to see this nonsense for what it is, stand together and tell the Democrats, enough.
I agree that he could have stated his point more clearly, but even so, I see this as another in a long line of similar asinine tempests in tea-kettles. The word is for this is umbrageous...and there's a lot of us who are really getting sick of it, this daily drama. [We hate "reality shows" for the same reason.]
Post a Comment