Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

National Geographic Does a Brilliant Job Explaining Climate Change

Recommended Posts

I was sitting in an auto body repair shop yesterday, and noticed a few issues of National Geographic and read through an article on climate change. The article was brilliantly done, completely engaging with graphs, images, diagrams--so very informative, and completely accessible. 

National Geographic really explained a lot of the issues dealing with global warming and the resulting impact on the planet, issues that get muddled by the mainstream media.  After reading the article I decided to subscribe, especially after looking at two other issues of the magazine that were just as brilliantly done.

I also decided to try to ignore what politicians and mainstream media, have to say about this issue. They really make things unnecessarily confusing.  One reason is that the media give WAY much attention to man made climate change deniers; which gives folks the false impression that the issue is up for debate, or a matter of opinion.

Learn more at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/

ngm_november_2015_cool-it.thumb.jpg.8ecd

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE NOVEMBER 2015 (online at ngm.com, and on print newsstands Oct. 27, 2015)

Cool it: The Climate Issue is a special, single-topic issue on the subject of climate change. The science is clear: Our planet is warming. Weather patterns are shifting. Ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. And it affects all of us. Now more than ever, everyone needs to understand this critical subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hummm that's interesting.  Especially since the scientific community has been apprehensive about the future direction of this iconic magazine which was recently  purchased by Fox media mogul Rupert Murdoch who, incidentally,  has been referred to as "anti-climate".   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love National Geographic Magazine. Troy, I am going to resubscribe as well.  It is absolutely informative. I used to subscribe to it for my students. We know that climate change is real. Our planet and everything on it is impacted as a result of it. Why this phenomenon is being denied by so many is simply beyond me. Climate Warming is denied as readily as the coming of Christ. Sorry, I don't mean to bring religion into the discussion. This is my belief.

Cynique, here is something else that I was not aware of. This is quite interesting--how ironic is this?!!! How is that folks who know the truth, often hide behind their lies, only to have their truths revealed in their actions? This is just hilarious to me.  I would love to hear Rupert Murdoch's position on this one.

You know with climate change, we can see the evidence with our own two eyes. This brings me to this: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I love it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific community should be concerned.  One person should not control all of the media we have access to--unless of course that person is me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a statistical analysis from about 1700 to 1980. I looked at yearly data. And there's a stronger link between population and CO2  than production and CO2. You will never see a regression model linking CO2 and production because it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet if you continued the analysis to include the most recent 30 years the trend would continue, more likely accelerate.

Del I don't have the magazine in front of me, and I don't have time to check the website right now, but I would have bet money the article included a regression model, and almost certainly projected the impact out to at least 2050 (could be wrong).

I would not be surprised to see a positive correlation between population and C02 emissions.  Though I don't the mere presence of more humans is causing the problem, it is their activity that is problematic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay but my podition is from looking at the data. You will never see a regression model. Because the data diesnt tell a story that will motivate people to change. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay but my position is from looking at the data. You will never see a regression model. Because the data doesn't tell a story that will motivate people to change. What I find interesting is that neither scientist diacyaa the link. Climate is also different than weather.

How much do you want to bet? 

I conducted a statiatical analysis of the data because I wanted to make up my own mind. So I had to look at the factors that effect weather. I stopped discussing it  because most people are debating it from an uninformed emotional position. And they are adamant either for or against. Even the scientists are making unscientific arguments on both sides. Ponder or figure it out: The Sun's activities effects  weather on earth; Why did they change the name from Global Warming to climate change. I am not trying to convince anyone. Just encouraging some research or fact finding then thinking or questioning. I happen to have time to do so others may be time poor. It takes up to much time to become informed because it cuts into Entertainment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may find a future predictive model, but not a historical descriptive model that links production to temperature. Which subtly is infirmative. I just took ten minutes. And I couldn't find one. Take the challenge. Don't believe me don't believe the scientist the sceptics. Just take ten minutes and search for a climate change regression model. If you do find it post the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what "scientist" say according to the Great Wiki.

 

 

The models do not assume the climate will warm due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Instead the models predict how greenhouse gases will interact with radiative transfer and other physical processes. Warming or cooling is thus a result, not an assumption, of the models.[127]

 

 

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/12/2015 at 0:25 AM, Troy said:

I bet if you continued the analysis to include the most recent 30 years the trend would continue, more likely accelerate.

 

I would not be surprised to see a positive correlation between population and C02 emissions.  Though I don't the mere presence of more humans is causing the problem, it is their activity that is problematic.

 

 

No its not. You would think there would be an increase at the beginning of the Industrial revolution. But there isn't. You would think you'd sew a appeared me in WW I or WW II. You think you would sww a spike with increase production but you don't. There are some nice graphs but no science. However I did skim it

 So I'd you cam across some interesting numbers. Or even a scientific sounding argument please post it.

And cows. I could post the analysis or raw data. In the absence of science most have swcuses one way or the other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Del I guess you ave to actually read the National Geographic article.  Also I would be very careful about using Wikipedia as a source of anything.  It might be a good starting point, The best approach would be to access the actual source documents directly and see what they actually say.  

I not in a position to debate the subject as it boils down to whose information one believes.  The National Geographic information was very compelling.  If you want to say they are lying or otherwise factually in accurate, I can't debate you on that as I have neither the data or the intellect to do so 

I do however trust the scientists, journalists and reporters at National Geographic over anything in Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came to the project without an opinion . In the help with intervening years I have not persuaded anyone to Dig a bit deeper. Or to examine their position .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...