Warming on hold.......cooling on the way?

[waste gate]

The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7° F. This was -0.3° F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.09 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.34 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 30th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

[robbo180265]

Well bully for you guys.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/04/28/eaheat28.xml

[waste gate]

Isn't it amasing how the earth cools itself without the intervention of humans?!!!

If this isn't evidence of how human activity isn't the cause for any warming, what is?

[Platapus]

I remember that back in the 1970's these same "scientists" were predicting a new ice age.

I think that science still has a lot to learn about the planet before being able to make these types of conclusions

[Tchocky]

If this isn't evidence of how human activity isn't the cause for any warming, what is?
It's not.

It is evidence that April's temperature was slightly under the average.

[waste gate]

If this isn't evidence of how human activity isn't the cause for any warming, what is?
It's not.

It is evidence that April's temperature was slightly under the average.

You didn't answer the question you just stated the obvious.

[Tchocky]

From your posts in this thread, the obvious needs stating.

We'd need something more than a small monthly temperature drop in a single country that occupies a small area of the globe.
Possibly if we could get a body of academics and scientists together to examine the problem, and then they could give us their opinion.
(hang on, we already did that)

[waste gate]

From your posts in this thread, the obvious needs stating.

We'd need something more than a small monthly temperature drop in a single country that occupies a small area of the globe.
Possibly if we could get a body of academics and scientists together to examine the problem, and then they could give us their opinion.
(hang on, we already did that)

That is my point. Look at robbo180265 post. One offsets the other. The planet doesn't give a rats ass what people do. Not in a month, not in a decade, not in a century.

The hubris of the global warming crowd should give every 'thinking' individual pause.

[Tchocky]

That is my point. Look at robbo180265 post. One offsets the other. No, waste_gate, they don't offset each other. Taking these two posts as offsets....

1 - Robbo's post - The warmest April in 350 years. Number One out of three hundred and fifty.

2 - your post - The 47th coolest April in 113 years. Number 47 out of 113. That's close to the midpoint.

That's not an offset, and you know it isn't.

The planet doesn't give a rats ass what people do. Not in a month, not in a decade, not in a century. Evidence suggests otherwise, dude.


EDIT - may as well hoe in on the OP data. Posting temperature and trying to link to global warming..

Temperature != Climate

Also weather is not equal to climate, and the chaotic and varying character of local weather means that nothing can be drawn from it...

[waste gate]

That is my point. Look at robbo180265 post. One offsets the other.
No, waste_gate, they don't offset each other. Taking these two posts as offsets....

1 - Robbo's post - The warmest April in 350 years. Number One out of three hundred and fifty.

2 - your post - The 47th coolest April in 113 years. Number 47 out of 113. That's close to the midpoint.

That's not an offset, and you know it isn't.

The planet doesn't give a rats ass what people do. Not in a month, not in a decade, not in a century. Evidence suggests otherwise, dude.


So what you are saying is that the Brits have been keeping 'acurate' tempurature records since 1657? Since Johnstown? They didn't even know how to measure longitude.

Come on.

[Tchocky]

Two things

1 - be quiet

2 - Spell accurate accurately.

Ok, let's not trust the brits. Cromwell and all that.
They've been fluffing the temp records since the 1600's just to make some money off this global warming hoax. Damn socialists.

Here's data from NASA. If you trust the NOAA, I think you'll be OK with NASA

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Note that there are fluctuations, but a definite trend.

[waste gate]

Two things

1 - be quiet

2 - Spell accurate accurately.

Ok, let's not trust the brits. Cromwell and all that.
They've been fluffing the temp records since the 1600's just to make some money off this global warming hoax. Damn socialists.

Here's data from NASA. If you trust the NOAA, I think you'll be OK with NASA

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Note that there are fluctuations, but a definite trend.

You my friend are not in any position to tell me or anyone else to be quiet.
This may go in hells kitchen with the westies (gangsters) you hang with, but not me. I don't want to hear that again from you or anyone else.

Acurate, accurate, spelling isn't really an issue here is it?

Your graph doesn't go back 350 years, and it isn't British in origin.

So the 350 year thing is wrong.

[Tchocky]

You my friend are not in any position to tell me or anyone else to be quiet.
This may go in hells kitchen with the westies (gangsters) you hang with, but not me. I don't want to hear that again from you or anyone else. And you know what they call uh...a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?
Nah man they got the metric system, they wouldn't know what the f*ck a quarter pounder is
Then what do they call it?
They call it, uh, Royale with Cheese
Royale with Cheese?
That's right
What do they call a Big Mac?
A Big Mac is a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac
Le Big Mac, what do they call a Whopper?
I don't know, I didn't go into Burger King.....

Acurate, accurate, spelling isn't really an issue here is it? I was going for some wry humour. But that's OK, on with the thread!

Your graph doesn't go back 350 years, and it isn't British in origin.

So the 350 year thing is wrong. Read my post, I stated that I wasn't going any further down the British road. I'm terribly sorry if that wasn't clear enough, I'll say more than "Ok, let's not trust the brits." next time. Again, i was trying to answer in a humorous tone, and it seems I shouldn't give up my day job with the gangsters.
The graph was in answer to your general theme, which was that the planet doesn't care what we do. Evidence suggests that she does.
A minor drop in monthly average temp is not evidence that she doesn't.

Actually, Hell's kitchen is lovely these days, tres chic! 9th Avenue, can't beat it!

[TteFAboB]

You just don't understand waste gate: it doesn't matter. Hot, cold, dry, wet, whatever, it's irrelevant. Global Warming warms AND cools, it washes AND dries, sometimes at the same time and at the same place. Take the example of the rain forest. It was global warming that created the rain forest, now global warming will destroy it and turn it into a desert.

[waste gate]

I spent many days/months/years in NYC Tchocky.

[Tchocky]

Eh, good for you?

topic?

[waste gate]

Eh, good for you?

topic?

The topic is that we can only see weather (as tenuous as the evidence is) in the past not the future. Can your weathermen forecast two weeks out? Ask yourself based on common sense; if I cannot get an adequate forecast for two weeks how can I get one for ten or 100 years?

[Tchocky]

Eh, good for you?

topic?
The topic is that we can only see weather (as tenuous as the evidence is) in the past not the future. Can your weathermen forecast two weeks out? Ask yourself based on common sense; if I cannot get an adequate forecast for two weeks how can I get one for ten or 100 years?

Read my previous post. Weather is not equal to climate. They are not interchangeable terms.

[waste gate]

Eh, good for you?

topic?
The topic is that we can only see weather (as tenuous as the evidence is) in the past not the future. Can your weathermen forecast two weeks out? Ask yourself based on common sense; if I cannot get an adequate forecast for two weeks how can I get one for ten or 100 years?

Read my previous post. Weather is not equal to climate. They are not interchangeable terms.

OK, if the terms are not synonomous, the question remains the same. If I cannot get an adequate record since the beginning of the industrial age; with all the regulation in the last 50 years, and scientist calling for a new ice age in the '60-'70, what does one believe? Not to mention ones ability to buy onesself out (carbon credits). Its about the money nothing more. The beauty is that the more folks like yourself scream about global warming the more money I make and the more poor the poor will get. Thanks :up:

The really great thing is that the more I argue my point the more the global warming folks put into the cause and the more money I make. Thanks again!!!

[baggygreen]

I wonder if the dinosaurs had the same sorts of dilemmas..

t-rex: gosh guys, stop playing with the volcano taps already, youre making the earth too hot and its playing hell with my complexion!

stegosaurus: oh stop your whining, the volcanoes would be going anyway, theres nothing different that we're doing

t-rex: oh yes there is guys, i'll make a video and make a thousand squillion dollars out of it and scare you all

stegosaurus: poppycock trexy baby, we're not gonna make the world hot - look, that bigass meteor is about to vapourise half of us and freeze the rest! so its a load of rubbish!

[August]

The topic is that we can only see weather (as tenuous as the evidence is) in the past not the future. Can your weathermen forecast two weeks out? Ask yourself based on common sense; if I cannot get an adequate forecast for two weeks how can I get one for ten or 100 years?

Forecasts and recorded temperatures are not the same thing waste gate.

[Tchocky]

OK, if the terms are not synonomous, the question remains the same.

OK, if the terms are not synonomous, the question remains the same.

Eh?

You asked a question about climate, working from data on weather. I corrected you, and now you say it doesn't change anything?

bleh

I'll have a Royale with Cheese

[waste gate]

Thanks august, I know forecast is the future and recorded means the past.

To clear my thoughts for everyone.
Scientists called for a new ice age in the '60-'70. Thirty/forty years later the scientists are calling for a global warming catastrophy. I think neither are or were true.

I'd just like to thank all those involved, carbon credit markets, activists, and the disenfranchised for allowing me to make money and enjoy a better life. Your efforts, no matter how misguided are very much appreciated.


thank you
wg

[Rilder]

I wonder if the dinosaurs had the same sorts of dilemmas..

t-rex: gosh guys, stop playing with the volcano taps already, youre making the earth too hot and its playing hell with my complexion!

stegosaurus: oh stop your whining, the volcanoes would be going anyway, theres nothing different that we're doing

t-rex: oh yes there is guys, i'll make a video and make a thousand squillion dollars out of it and scare you all

stegosaurus: poppycock trexy baby, we're not gonna make the world hot - look, that bigass meteor is about to vapourise half of us and freeze the rest! so its a load of rubbish!

Evidence seems to point that Dinosaurs liked to talk about phillosiphy(sp?) (http://www.qwantz.com)

[The Avon Lady]

To clear my thoughts for everyone.
Scientists called for a new ice age in the '60-'70. Thirty/forty years later the scientists are calling for a global warming catastrophy. I think neither are or were true.
You sound just like these guys (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=).

EDIT: Incidentally, we are having here in Israel unseasonably cold weather and buckets of rain that no one even twice my age recalls ever seeing here at this time of year.

[moose1am]

The proof of Global Warming is in the Pudding. If your data were accurate the Glacial Ice would be building up not Melting at both the North and South Poles.

But you see the Ice IS MELTING. There is proof Positive that even a moron can see. So why don't you note this simple fact. Anyone that tries to argue otherwise must have some AGENDA! Again the polar ice caps are proof positive that the earth is WARMING NOT COOLING.




Isn't it amasing how the earth cools itself without the intervention of humans?!!!

If this isn't evidence of how human activity isn't the cause for any warming, what is?

[wireman]

"bahhh, bahhh" says the sheep.

[micky1up]

heres a bit of news scientist claim that mars is showing signs of global warming ! with no humans on mars or cars or factories or life what causing the warming i would suggest the same thats causing the warming on earth

[Skybird]

One must not go as far as to the poles to see ice melting. The Alpes is close enough. All glaciers have dissappeared, or have lost 60-80% of their size from less than fifty years ago. Experts examining it (last but not leat hired by the toursim industry) say the remaining glacier will have completely idssapeared in 20-30 years at the latest. within that time frame the Alpes are expected to be snow-free. If you want to do skiing in the Alpes, no matter what country, you better do it now.

Anyhow, recent findings showed that the polar ice is melting much, much faster than previously projected.

In Germany we had the warmest April since the beginning of weather recordings. Agriculture has suffered early, some regions loose up to 50% of the next harvest - and summer even has not begun. The May so far is drowining in rain, again almost to record levels in some regions, which again does damage, and helps funghis to spread.

Shipping on rivers temporarily had been stopped, due to low water. Normally, the ice-melting should have caused floodings.

Insect- and animal-population spreading patterns, and travel paths of animal species, are changing faster than ever known beforem, due to the massive shifts of climatic zones. Sweet water supply is no longer guaranteed in some regions of central and southern europe.

There are fluctuations, but the general trend cannot be overseen, it yells loud and clearly in your ears - as long as you haven't put wax into them. But for some people it cannot be what should not be. Who cares - the changes take place, wether they like it or not. Personal opinions that it should all be different are completely unimportant here.

What was that...? Ouch - was that a hurt ego crying in pain...?

Man better starts to adopt as best as he can - and that means: he better starts NOW. Else the developement simply will overrun him, and future attempts, having been started too late, simply will get buried by the inner dynamics and increasing pace of the changes. Note that I talk of adopting - not chnaging, not to mention preventing what is happening. It is like travelling on a river in a small canoe, that slowly turns into a a white water, and than turns into dangerous rapids. You better get to the beach and get yourself a paddle before continuing. there is a point beyond which the situation is no longer under your control, and you become a playball on the water, not being able to steer or do the smallest corrections on your course, not to mention to reverse your course or get back to the safe beach. In that situation, you cannot do anything anymore, and you will need to go through all of it, and eventually get killed.

There were several small news reports during the last days that several European science institutions complained about a new offensive being launched from industrial lobbies and "think tanks" financed by political conservatives, that is again about attempting to put established scientific conclusions and raw data as well into doubt, and try to make mockery of reports concluding that starting to seriously act now is very urgent after so many years and decades headlessly being wasted. It is the same pattern that I have described and complained about repeatedly in the past three or four months. the only concern of these people is to prevent changes, guard current intererst, clouding the mind of the public, and make sure that nothing gets done that would change profits, and would cost investements. But the investements that are saved now that way will be needed to be payed some hundred times higher in the future.

Since such acting is doing monumental damage to the global communities, steals trillions of bucks in the long run, and makes mockery of the hundreds of millions of people in third world countries who will pay with their economical existence and with their lifes (floodings, lack of sweet water, droughts, soil erosion), for the sins of the global economical system, I call these agendas to still spread doubts and ignore scientific raw data and trying to concela what is happening right now a criminal intend, and a crime against humanity and all mankind. The responsible people for this, sitting in high political and economical positions, should be sentenced at international tribunals. The damage they do is far more lethal and catastrophical and hurting to the economy than what any terrorist organization ever could hope to acchieve all by itself.

[Skybird]

And Micky comes with the old Mars "argument" again just after I posted. It has been rebuffed time and again, but no matter - bring it forward if it helps your agenda.

micky, are you aware of the different climates and seasonal patterns on Mars and Earth? The differences in weather "rythms" and atmospheres on both planets? Do some Googleing, and you will see why most astronomers LAUGH out loudly about that stupid comparison. I do not waste more time putting it together again.

That argument is what in German is called Stammtisch-Niveau. You could as well make a weather prognosis for the next day on the basis of blue sky and sheep-clouds in Heaven.

[waste gate]

And then we have this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnJCsSS73KU

[Tchocky]

Compelling

[joea]

Compelling

Oh yea!!! :rotfl:

[August]

I thought this one was far more compelling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn8SRxzYF-s&NR=1

[The Avon Lady]

I thought this one was far more compelling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn8SRxzYF-s&NR=1
Um..... I didn't.:nope:

Of course scientists have predicted absolute non-sense in the past and will continue to do so, unfortunately.

However, a lot of the people and groups mentioned in that video aren't scientists. Some are but are not necessarily of impecable professional reputations.

Take overfishing, for example. I suggest you go out to any major fisheries port around the world and listen to the fisherman themselves. Something is very wrong there.

That's not to say that the causes of global warming specifically can be guaranteed to be man-made or not.

[micky1up]

And Micky comes with the old Mars "argument" again just after I posted. It has been rebuffed time and again, but no matter - bring it forward if it helps your agenda.

micky, are you aware of the different climates and seasonal patterns on Mars and Earth? The differences in weather "rythms" and atmospheres on both planets? Do some Googleing, and you will see why most astronomers LAUGH out loudly about that stupid comparison. I do not waste more time putting it together again.

That argument is what in German is called Stammtisch-Niveau. You could as well make a weather prognosis for the next day on the basis of blue sky and sheep-clouds in Heaven.


and are you aware that reports thet this spring is the warmest spring since 1730 so what was causing the warm spring in 1730 ? cars (delorians lol) trains factories?

[Skybird]

As somebody already said: there is always fluctuation in natural phenomenons. This does not contradict a stabile trend. And this unusual April is just the latest unusual weather and season phenomenon over here in an already longer line of unusual weather and season phenomenons - since many years. We get all kinds of yearly records over here, from year to year new records, wether it be the ammount of rain, floodings, or droughts. Not always all records together, but over the years it makes a nice mixture.

Weather pohenomenons and seasons without doubt became more extreme. Germany knows the phenomenon of mini-tornadoes living only for seconds and at best pushing a tree since decades, all over the land there used to 20-30 of these, per year. Not worth to be mentioned. Since some years, we see much greater tornados. Not yet as many as of the mini versions, still not as big as the American ones, but several times more serious than in the decades before. Two years ago here in my hometown a street was demolished, house roofs were heavily damaged, and dozens of trees were killed. I don't remember the time, i think it was early last year when in Eastern Germany half of a complete village was heavily dmaaged and partially destroyed. For years ago my father was injured in Berlin when a sudden tornadoe haunted the plaza around the famous Gedächtniskirche and heavily damaged parts of the Europa-Centre, which is a high tower (little skyscraper), and devastated seveeral warehouses, cafes and shops. This is absolutely unsual for Germany. This is a new scale of destruction being done by tornados in Germany. The beasts live longer now, and have much more power.

Just look at that graphics Tchocky posted and you get the idea of fluctuations, and trends. the general global warmth level is higher today than it was back then. An extraordinary cold winter, a warm April or a rainy May does not change that fact. Fluctuatioins are a coinstant zigzagging of the curve. The trend describes a more stable longterm developement.

This year, in my region of Germany we had snow for just 6 hours, on one day. Last year we had two weeks of snow, masses of snow, even electricity broke down and powerline-masts got destroyed in greater parts of Germany, which is extremely unsual over here. Villages and whole cities were cut off, it was a real desaster, it took two weeks to get out of the worst and get all supplies, heating, water running again - not somewhere in a forsaken vally in the high Alpes, but in the flat Northern part of Germany! This does not change that the winters I see today are much, much warmer than they used to be during my schooldays 20-30 years ago. The last two summers were moderate, but 2003 was desastrous. But in a general trend the summers I see now are more dry and much hotter than they were during my childhood.

Fluctuation - and trend. Not difficult.

[micky1up]

there is a trend ! its tendy to say you believe global waming if your a scientist it get you funds to do research , if you dont believe you get squat to prove your theory and shunned by the trendy scientists

[Skybird]

It gets you often even more money (from conservative, neoliberal thinktanks and industrial lobbies) if you agree on stepping forward in public and making mockery of every scientific conclusion, finding, series of data that are perceived as a threat to present interst of these financial sources. Even the most absurd argument today finds an echo if it only is repeated often enough - number of repetitions is probably even more important that reasonable convincing content (at leats that is what psychological experiments are indicating...) I have linked not only to news reports, but to orginal document over the last months and I think two years that did not only suggest but proove this.

Maybe the right job for you. ;) Make mockery of everything you don't like -and get paid for it!

[micky1up]

ive seen very little on the news about the probable miscalculation on global warming and several news channels in the uk have had month long mini episodes about how the human race is destroying the world through global warming , IMHO when the dust settles and we look back we will see that its been one large waste of money in trying to stop something that is a natural cycle the world goes though constantly and has done for millions of years

[August]

Take overfishing, for example. I suggest you go out to any major fisheries port around the world and listen to the fisherman themselves. Something is very wrong there.

You forget AL, I live in New England. We've majorly been into fishing since, well forever, and I know quite a few fishermen. One of them was over the house just last night complaining about misguided government regulations ruining his livelyhood while huge foreign ships are allowed to vaccuum up everything in the fishing grounds unimpeded.

I think this HL Mencken quote at the end pretty much sums it up:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"

[Heibges]

What worries me more than warming or cooling is the diminishing amount of drinkable water.

Many of the rivers in the western United States are poisoned with rocket fuel.

Corporations are buying up water rights.

[Tchocky]

IMHO when the dust settles and we look back we will see that its been one large waste of money in trying to stop something that is a natural cycle the world goes though constantly and has done for millions of years
What are you basing that on?

[micky1up]

im basing it on the history of the world we have had ice ages & hot periods which all attrbute to the cycle of the earth and the sun's phases show me the proof that the world is over heating due to mankind ? the fact is you cant



but if your a scientist wanting a grant you can have all the money you need aslong as it helps prove that its due to man no just natural plz explain mars and it signs of global warming without cars factories and power stations



p.s most of the science we trust today wasnt popular when the theorys fist came out newton einstien are just two of many very nearly ostrisized for thier brilliance

[Tchocky]

im basing it on the history of the world we have had ice ages & hot periods which all attrbute to the cycle of the earth and the sun's phases show me the proof that the world is over heating due to mankind ? the fact is you cant Proof? Yes. Conclusive, iron-clad proof? No. Science isn't like that, except in mathematics.
Yes, the Earth has cycles of warming and cooling. But now it's warming faster than ever. Considerably faster. You don't get 100% certainty in science, because that's a pretty dumb stance to take. Saying that we know everything is ridiculous.

but if your a scientist wanting a grant you can have all the money you need aslong as it helps prove that its due to man no just natural plz explain mars and it signs of global warming without cars factories and power stations Right, if you can show me that Mars as a whole is warming, and not just the icy area around the south pole.

Let's see. If Mars and Earth are both warming, and they are quite different planets, then it must be the fault of the Sun. But it isn't. Solar output hasn't changed since 1978, and there's been a hell of a lot of warming since then.
Actually, we've been through the Mars argument before, and I've always posted the same site.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Have at it. But it's obviously scientists scrabbling for research funds, because that's what science is about, isn't it?
Actually, barring this nebulous distrust of scientists you seem to have, how about showing me where funding has been conditional on results? A couple of cases please. Otherwise I'll mark it as bull**** and move on.

EDIT - More on the solar output rubbish. This graph is from the Max Planck Institute, marking irradiance (solar output in terms of Watts per square metre) against recorded temperature. Notice how solar output accounts for come of the early 20th-century warming, but not the massive increase from about 1970 on.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

but of course, they're making it up for cash. How silly of me to trust them.

[micky1up]

no science is about trying to find truth but the blatant bias being shown stiffles truth and inspiration



ps nice diagram shame it dosent go back a few thousand years so you can see the real cycle


your coming to a conclusion with out all the information thats bad science

[Tchocky]

no science is about trying to find truth but the blatant bias being shown stiffles truth and inspiration Show. Me. Where.
You're talking out of your ass here, I suspect. But c'mon, prove me wrong.

ps nice diagram shame it dosent go back a few thousand years so you can see the real cycle OK, so how about focusing on the years that it does show.

I'm not coming to any conclusions of my own. I'm not a scientist, so the label of "bad science" doesn't really stick. Try again.

But they predicted global cooling in the 70's! An Ice Age! - The level of consensus was nonexistent at that stage. There was a book and a few articles, the kind of stuff that makes headlines because it sounds so dramatic.
Today is different, even the oil companies have gotten their head out of the sand. There is a wide consensus that global warming is very likely caused by human activity. There was no such weight behind the ice-age prediction of the 1970's

[Skybird]

Just two more points.

1. this or that answer to why global warming is there - does not free you from the need to adopt to it, no matter what your answer is. Call it a natural cycle, call it man-made, call it caused by the man in the moon - the reality you have to deal with is still the same, you still must adopt to it, or you get overrolled by the consequences of not reacting in time. In other words: your agenda you are running in your position towards environmental policy - is not asked for. It is of interest for nobody but man himself. Earth as a whole system leads the way, and you follow. That way, or no way. It is not needed that you like it that way. It is what you get, and nothing more, so deal with it, or die. That's evolution.

2. The important thing that should ring the alarm bell is not the event of global warming itself - but the the incredible speed at which it takes place and which according to wide consensus is unique in earth's history of the past couple of million years. We are talking of factors in the range of four digits.

If this does not make you think, then nothing ever will.

[bradclark1]

Call it a natural cycle, call it man-made,
or a combination of both and learn to adapt to what we can't change and change what we can.

[micky1up]

no science is about trying to find truth but the blatant bias being shown stiffles truth and inspiration Show. Me. Where.
You're talking out of your ass here, I suspect. But c'mon, prove me wrong.

ps nice diagram shame it dosent go back a few thousand years so you can see the real cycle OK, so how about focusing on the years that it does show.

I'm not coming to any conclusions of my own. I'm not a scientist, so the label of "bad science" doesn't really stick. Try again.

But they predicted global cooling in the 70's! An Ice Age! - The level of consensus was nonexistent at that stage. There was a book and a few articles, the kind of stuff that makes headlines because it sounds so dramatic.
Today is different, even the oil companies have gotten their head out of the sand. There is a wide consensus that global warming is very likely caused by human activity. There was no such weight behind the ice-age prediction of the 1970's

thats fine and dandy but what if the last few hundred years shows the top end of the cycle and the few hundred before that show a decrease or a steady temp , do you see my point your basing a theory on incomplete data which is bad science

[Tchocky]

Here's the few hundred before that, then

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[wireman]

No stopping it now so press on boys.

[Skybird]

learn to adapt to what we can't change and change what we can.
Well said! :up:

[August]

Here's the few hundred before that, then

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Two questions:

1. Who made that chart?
2. What is the accuracy of their reconstruction?

[micky1up]

certainly looks like a sine wave cycle to me not perfect but defo a cycle


nice pre industrial high point in the year 1000 what was causing that? i wonder

[Fish]

Isn't it amasing how the earth cools itself without the intervention of humans?!!!

If this isn't evidence of how human activity isn't the cause for any warming, what is?

April here was the warmest since they start measuring in 1706. :hmm:
I cant remember ever laying on the beach in april ( I am 67), but we did this year three days in a row.
Over 25 degrees celcius. :doh:

[waste gate]

Isn't it amasing how the earth cools itself without the intervention of humans?!!!

If this isn't evidence of how human activity isn't the cause for any warming, what is?

April here was the warmest since they start measuring in 1838. :hmm:
I cant remember ever laying on the beach in april ( I am 67), but we did this year three days in a row.
Over 25 degrees celcius. :doh:

As my original post stated the following:
The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7° F. This was -0.3° F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.09 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.34 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 30th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

[Tchocky]

Two questions:

1. Who made that chart?
2. What is the accuracy of their reconstruction?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png#Reconst ructions

Seems fairly straight.

Micky - the Medieval Warm Period was more or less confined to the North Atlantic region. The highest temp reading there (light blue) comes from reading northern tree rings, hence the apparent global warmth.

[August]

April here was the warmest since they start measuring in 1838. :hmm:
I cant remember ever laying on the beach in april ( I am 67), but we did this year three days in a row.
Over 25 degrees celcius. :doh:
So? April here was the coldest that I can remember and that hasn't changed halfway into May either. For example, it's only in 45 degrees (fahrenheit) here today. It should be well into the 70's or 80's.

[Heibges]

Take overfishing, for example. I suggest you go out to any major fisheries port around the world and listen to the fisherman themselves. Something is very wrong there.

You forget AL, I live in New England. We've majorly been into fishing since, well forever, and I know quite a few fishermen. One of them was over the house just last night complaining about misguided government regulations ruining his livelyhood while huge foreign ships are allowed to vaccuum up everything in the fishing grounds unimpeded.

I think this HL Mencken quote at the end pretty much sums it up:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"

I'm from New England too. Between the loss of the family farm, and the loss of fishing grounds, things are pretty rough.

Foreigners are fishing our coasts dry.

[micky1up]

Two questions:

1. Who made that chart?
2. What is the accuracy of their reconstruction?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png#Reconst ructions

Seems fairly straight.

Micky - the Medieval Warm Period was more or less confined to the North Atlantic region. The highest temp reading there (light blue) comes from reading northern tree rings, hence the apparent global warmth.


so you have no records of the rest of the world just the atlantic area that makes your assumptions even more worse bad bad bad science

[Gorduz]

This will end the discussion...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/FSM_Pirates.jpg
The problem is causality. Sure everyone agrees that the earth is getting hotter, and one can relate that to different things. It almost impossible to prove with one experiment(one earth) anything at all, but releasing black smoke into the atmosphere is probably not a good thing anyway..

[kiwi_2005]

well theirs something not right with the world's climate slowly over the years the north island of New Zealand is getting warmer each winter, its winter here now and im sitting here in my home no fire going wearing jeans and t shirt, we have about 3 weeks of frosts and thats it, our winters are like a cold summer day. Its rapidly becoming warmer each year and we have now what they call a rainy season we never use to have a rainy season!:o

The hole in the ozone is directly over the north island

[waste gate]

This will end the discussion...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/FSM_Pirates.jpg
The problem is causality. Sure everyone agrees that the earth is getting hotter, and one can relate that to different things. It almost impossible to prove with one experiment(one earth) anything at all, but releasing black smoke into the atmosphere is probably not a good thing anyway..

Shiver me timbers!

We need more pirates! Yo-Ho-Ho and a bottle of rum!

Savy??

[wireman]

:rotfl:

[U-533]

I'll be back with proof that all this global warming crap is just that "CRAP"

I have to dig through the records and stuff gemme some time BRB!

[Tchocky]

Two questions:

1. Who made that chart?
2. What is the accuracy of their reconstruction? http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png#Reconst ructions

Seems fairly straight.

Micky - the Medieval Warm Period was more or less confined to the North Atlantic region. The highest temp reading there (light blue) comes from reading northern tree rings, hence the apparent global warmth.

so you have no records of the rest of the world just the atlantic area that makes your assumptions even more worse bad bad bad science I'm answering your comment about the previous high temperature around 1000, which was confined to the North Atlantic area. Not the whole world, so it doesnt really help the skeptic argument, it seems.
Obviously over time the records become more accurate and complete, thats progress. You'll notice that the various records (each line in the graph) converge as time goes on, owing to better methods of recording.

If you can find records for the Antarctic, before anyone knew it was there, please provide them. You seem to think these are "my" records. Sorry to say, I'm not out every day with a thermometer.

Any chance of answering my replies to you instead of bleating "bad bad bad" science? I've already stated, I'm not a scientist, I'm not an expert in climatology or meteorology. I'm presenting the research of others, so lay off with the bad science schtick. I've answered your posts to the best of my half-assed ability, are you going to give anything except single-sentence replies? Go on, read over the thread.

August - I apologise. The link I posted was to the 1000-year analysis, the 2000-year (the original posted graph) is linked on that page. Any response?

[August]

August - I apologise. The link I posted was to the 1000-year analysis, the 2000-year (the original posted graph) is linked on that page. Any response?

I do believe the earth is in a warming trend atm but nothing i've seen so far proves one way or the other that man is either the cause of it or that it won't reverse itself at any time in the future.

The way I see it 2000 years is the blink of an eye in geological terms and the accuracy of reconstructing past temperatures drops considerably the further back you go so what weight this graph, or any argument pro or con for that matter, should carry must be taken in that light.

[The Avon Lady]

Nancy Pelosi is asking for you responses at Yahoo Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515095722AAHFDqq).

Play nice. :cool:

[Deamon]

plz explain mars and it signs of global warming without cars factories and power stations
Only mars ?

I read once that global warming happens on all planets in our solar system.

[Deamon]

This might be interesting.

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro

[Tchocky]

plz explain mars and it signs of global warming without cars factories and power stations Only mars ?

I read once that global warming happens on all planets in our solar system.
I posted a link earlier on the thread that deals with the Martian warming

[Hitman]

Here's an interesting article with a new perspective about why global warming through human causes is not likely to go as far as predited:

http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=29845

The reason is very different than the ones used until now, but certainly even more apolcalyptical. Enjoy the debate!

[Precipitously jumps aside before the cross-fire starts:D ]

[Deamon]

Here's an interesting article with a new perspective about why global warming through human causes is not likely to go as far as predited:

http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=29845

The reason is very different than the ones used until now, but certainly even more apolcalyptical. Enjoy the debate!

[Precipitously jumps aside before the cross-fire starts:D ]
Nah, Oil for ever (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html) :)

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

EDIT: I'm more worried about the disapearance of bees :yep:

[Rose]

I spent many days/months/years in NYC Tchocky.

I live in NYC right now and I can tell you that Hell's Kitchen IS, in fact, very "chic."

Edit: I just realized that was 4 pages ago... w/e

[Sea Demon]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/

Hmmm. Global Warming on Neptune. Maybe Al Gore will find a way to blame it on human emissions, and provide us with a place where we can all pay for carbon credits to ease our collective guilt. :D

[robbo180265]

Is this true?

Are my eyes decieving me?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2092628,00.html


Perhaps there is hope for us

Tony Juniper, the head of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is a deliberate and carefully crafted attempt to derail any prospect of a climate change agreement (at the G8 summit) in Germany next week. [Mr Bush] is trying to destroy the prospect of that getting anywhere by announcing his own parallel process with very vaguely expressed objectives ... Basically we should see this as a delaying tactic to keep the climate change issue off his back in terms of any real decisions until he leaves office (in early 2009)."

But then again, probably not:hmm:

[Sea Demon]

Is this true?

Are my eyes decieving me?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2092628,00.html


Perhaps there is hope for America

Read the last paragraph carefully. This is probably the most accurate statement I've ever seen from anybody in the environmental community to date. Bush doesn't have any history supporting these measures and seemingly no intention of reducing economic output to pacify the greenies. I think this chap is quite right. ;)

[waste gate]

Not only the US and GWB my friend.

A crucial agreement on climate change failed to materialize in final talks at the ASEM summit in Hamburg on Tuesday, and the continuing gulf between European and developing Asian nations may likewise sink hopes for a climate agreement at next week's G-8 summit in Heiligendamm.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485631,00.html

[robbo180265]

Is this true?

Are my eyes decieving me?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2092628,00.html


Perhaps there is hope for America

Read the last paragraph carefully. This is probably the most accurate statement I've ever seen from anybody in the environmental community to date. Bush doesn't have any history supporting these measures and seemingly no intention of reducing economic output to pacify the greenies. I think this chap is quite right. ;)

Dude! I quoted the last chapter;)

[Sea Demon]

Is this true?

Are my eyes decieving me?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2092628,00.html


Perhaps there is hope for America

Read the last paragraph carefully. This is probably the most accurate statement I've ever seen from anybody in the environmental community to date. Bush doesn't have any history supporting these measures and seemingly no intention of reducing economic output to pacify the greenies. I think this chap is quite right. ;)

Dude! I quoted the last chapter;)

No. You edited it after I added my response. ;)

[robbo180265]

Is this true?

Are my eyes decieving me?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2092628,00.html


Perhaps there is hope for America

Read the last paragraph carefully. This is probably the most accurate statement I've ever seen from anybody in the environmental community to date. Bush doesn't have any history supporting these measures and seemingly no intention of reducing economic output to pacify the greenies. I think this chap is quite right. ;)

Dude! I quoted the last chapter;)

No. You edited it after I added my response. ;)

Actually I did, now I think about it - sorry

[Tchocky]

I'll be back with proof that all this global warming crap is just that "CRAP"

I have to dig through the records and stuff gemme some time BRB!
*twitches in anticipation*

:D

[robbo180265]

I'll be back with proof that all this global warming crap is just that "CRAP"

I have to dig through the records and stuff gemme some time BRB!

#Pulls up deckchair, pours a pint, relaxes and waits#

[kurtz]

certainly looks like a sine wave cycle to me not perfect but defo a cycle




Maybe it looks like a sine wave to you I don't imagine it does to anyone else. Have you seen a tangent wave. It's not either but looks rather more like a tangent. Now extrapolate that a bit.

[Happy Times]

Read what a 15 year old girl has to say about it.:p

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/id12.html

[Skybird]

Some of our American friends may wish to sign up here: :D

http://action.foe.org/dia/organizationsORG/foe/content.jsp?content_KEY=2748

Or not. :lol:

All this with reference to this week's honestly meant :rotfl: events:

http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/g8mai.pdf (Anglish and German)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485992,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,486090,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,486135,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485683,00.html

Sometimes, no compromise is better than a foul compromise, and this is such an occasion. I do not expect Bush to move during the summit, and thus hope that the europeans and the Germans let the summit fail with flying colours, by that america could be better isolated and brandmarked as the world's major roadblock to tackling environmental problems and adapting to climate change. even China was becoming more willing to reconsider it'S stand - and now use the American stubborness again as an excuse not do move at all. Ironically, on national levels the US are far more positive on Green policies than is the administration. I reead that many cities and counties are far ahead of federal policies on renewable energies and emission control. Bush claims credits that are nit his own. However, nobody outside sees the US as world leader in according technologies and policies, but it could become something like that - after Bush is history and hopefully neither Hillary nor a Republican becomes the new president. Bush'S proposals are a fake, and you know what? :lol: I knew that something like this would becoming from the WH short before the summit - it would have been exaclty the thing that I would have done in his place, too, to ease the pressure on me and hoping to deflect european and global pressures a bit withiut needing to coimmit myself to anything real, and obligatory. Well, he can bury that hope - in Germany, most people are just laughing about his "initiative", and many are even angry.

And btw, Mr President, on your remarks in that speech of the US being the global leader in fighting climate change: the global market leader on wind energy technologies and manufacturing solar cells - is Germany (our books are filled with order for the mnext 13-17 years), while concerning according technologies American car makers lack behind considerably behind European and Japanese car manufacturers. You, Mr. President, are leader in only one thing: air pollution, and wasting oil. ;) And give Mrs. Pelosi a hug when you see here.

Bush is playing for time. But as a matter of fact, his nation already is ahead of him. It's only a question of time, until even america will start to move towards greener policies - necessarily. Green" does not mean "evil". It can boost your prestige - see California, and Arnold.It can boost your economy: see Germany, our ecology-related branches are skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, time is what we do have less and lesser of.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

HA

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle

:shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty::s hifty::shifty:

[Happy Times]

Read what a 15 year old girl has to say about it.:p

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/id12.html

She is a child genius.:lol: Actually she makes good arguments.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/id13.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/12968

[Tchocky]

#Pulls up deckchair, pours a pint, relaxes and waits#

Ah! that's much better!

[waste gate]

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

[P_Funk]

Canada? Colder? Will we notice the difference?

[The Avon Lady]

Old news already but believe it or not.......................... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857.html) :nope:

[Heibges]

I was watching a similar piece about the Little Ice Age which hit Northern Europe from like 1350 to 1850.

It was like the change in the temperature in the Indian Ocean affecting Africa.

I guess it was warm during the Middle Ages for a long time. This caused icepacks to melt in the artic. This decreased the salinity in the water. This stopped the northern current which brings warm water from the tropics up to Iceland on the surface of the water, drops of its heat, then sinks as it becomes more dense and heads south back to the tropics. The decreasing salinity stopped this northern flow of warm water, and dropped the average temperature by 3 to 4 degrees.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html

http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/LittleIceAge.htm

http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm

[moose1am]

The temperature this summer in the USA are going to be higher than normal.

You must take the yearly temperatures of all the spots on the globe and average them all together to see the effects of global warming.

Waste Gate you don't fool anyone with your narrow picture of this issue. Sorry but you remind of of the three blind men and the elephant.

You see April's temp as the trunk of the tree not an Elephant. That's just WRONG!

All I have to do is look at the Corn crops in my area and see how they have been wilted from the high temperature and lack of moisture.

Go back to 1930 and look at the DUST Bowl events at that time.

If the April temperature were cooler than the ice caps would be freezing back up not melting as they continue to do at a rapid pace.

Your arguements don't hold any water mate. One look at the polar regions, iceland glacier and all the other glacial ice that's left is all it takes to convice any one with some brains that the earth is warming up fast.

[August]

The temperature this summer in the USA are going to be higher than normal.

Y'know that's what they say but so far it's been a very cool June up around these parts. Still this is New England. The only place I know that can have a heat wave and a blizzard in the same day.

[Fish]

Temperatures are extremly high here during spring (March, April, May, June till now), but next week will be to cold. :hmm:

For example:
March 9,5°C (normal : 5,9°)
April 11.9 C (normal : 8.7 C)
May 15.8 C (normal: 12.8 C)
This are average temps.

[moose1am]

The little ice age was started by a huge volcanic eruption that sent thousands of tons of ash into the upper atmosphere which lingered up there for several years. Unlike CO2 the Ash blocks out the sunlight and prevents the earth from heating up. CO2 gas on the other hand allows the sunlight to enter the earth's atmosphere but not readiate back out into space thus warming the earth.

Nobody knows what the heck the sun does or how it really works. NO probe have ever gone to the sun and surviced long enough to learn much about the sun. All we can do is look at the sunlight though instruments and try go guess what it's going to do.

But we speculate that someday the sun will explode or collapse. I think it will just burn out . Remember that matter can't be destroyed or made only changed in form. The sun is most likely just one big hydrgen explosion.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

[waste gate]

This arcticle is is from Nov. 2005 and its saying another LIA maybe on the way.
No money to be made on cooling I guess; so warming it is!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html

My favorite cartoon on the subject so far!!!!

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-22GlobalWarming.gif

[The Avon Lady]

The little ice age was started by a huge volcanic eruption that sent thousands of tons of ash into the upper atmosphere which lingered up there for several years.
I knew that! :know: I saw the movie! :yep:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9110/scrat3uh9.jpg

[Fish]

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf)



"The last decade has seen a revival of various
hypotheses claiming a strong correlation
between solar activity and a number of terrestrial
climate parameters.Links have been made
between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first
total cloud cover and then only low clouds,
and between solar cycle lengths and northern
hemisphere land temperatures.These hypotheses
play an important role in the scientific debate
as well as in the public debate about the possibility
or reality of a man-made global climate
change."

"However,close analysis of the central graphs
in all of these articles reveals questionable
handling of the underlying physical data."

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462)



"Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions." http://forum.tweevandaag.nl/templates/tweevandaag/images/spacer.gifhttp://forum.tweevandaag.nl/templates/tweevandaag/images/spacer.gif


http://forum.tweevandaag.nl/templates/tweevandaag/images/spacer.gifhttp://forum.tweevandaag.nl/templates/tweevandaag/images/spacer.gif

[waste gate]

Some light reading.


Science, not politics (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5b824408-9df0-4189-86fc-cf6465bf0aa8&p=1)
Statistics needed (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)
The original denier: into the cold (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)
End the chill (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=216ca730-10f0-4614-9692-fc37d99cbac3)
They call this a consensus? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af)
The limits of predictability (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0)
Unsettled science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a)
The ice-core man (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6)
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)
Polar scientists on thin ice (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0)
The sun moves climate change (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0)
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7)
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
Read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
Forget warming - beware the new ice age (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278)
Little Ice Age is still with us (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1&p=1)
Fighting climate 'fluff' (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e)

[Heibges]

Some light reading.


Science, not politics (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5b824408-9df0-4189-86fc-cf6465bf0aa8&p=1)
Statistics needed (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)
The original denier: into the cold (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)
End the chill (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=216ca730-10f0-4614-9692-fc37d99cbac3)
They call this a consensus? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af)
The limits of predictability (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0)
Unsettled science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a)
The ice-core man (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6)
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)
Polar scientists on thin ice (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0)
The sun moves climate change (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0)
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7)
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
Read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
Forget warming - beware the new ice age (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278)
Little Ice Age is still with us (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1&p=1)
Fighting climate 'fluff' (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e)

I was watching a thing on The Little Iceage and it was really scarry. Is the melting of the polar icecap desalinating the North Atlantic and sending us towards another one?

[Tchocky]

Some light reading.

Science, not politics (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5b824408-9df0-4189-86fc-cf6465bf0aa8&p=1)
Statistics needed (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)
The original denier: into the cold (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)
End the chill (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=216ca730-10f0-4614-9692-fc37d99cbac3)
They call this a consensus? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af)
The limits of predictability (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0)
Unsettled science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a)
The ice-core man (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6)
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)
Polar scientists on thin ice (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0)
The sun moves climate change (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0)
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7)
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
Read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
Forget warming - beware the new ice age (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278)
Little Ice Age is still with us (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1&p=1)
Fighting climate 'fluff' (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e)
It's kind of fun going through these and finding the sources.

Example, Solomon, in the Consensus article, quotes the Oregon Institutes Survey of "17,800 scientists". Check what really happened here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)
Solomon is not checking his sources, but if it fits the conclusion...

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol.

Also, it's nice to see that a shrinking of a small southern region of Mars can be construed as "global warming". We've been over Mars many times, even on this thread. The title of the Mars piece is "Look to Mars for the truth on global warming". I couldn't agree more :roll:

[Jimbuna]

Temperatures are extremly high here during spring March, April, May, June

Send a few degrees over to Northern England mate :D

[Fish]

Temperatures are extremly high here during spring March, April, May, June

Send a few degrees over to Northern England mate :D
I spare some for my holidays in november (Scotland).

[Thniper]

Interesting thread here. Enjoyed reading very much!

I would like to know if anyone here is a 'real' scientist by profession?

Well, concerning me, I'm a geologist.;)

Thniper

...

[Jimbuna]

I spare some for my holidays in november (Scotland).


You might just need them :yep:

[Heibges]

To be honest I am less concerned with Global Warming, and more concerned with the effect of pumping these chemicals into the air has on respiratory ailments. Like the "Killer Fogs" of London for instance. Additionally, look at the asthma problem in Los Angeles.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954

http://www.lapublichealth.org/mch/CHI/chi_asthma.htm

[Fish]

Interesting thread here. Enjoyed reading very much!

I would like to know if anyone here is a 'real' scientist by profession?

Well, concerning me, I'm a geologist.;)

Thniper

...

No, thats why all the confusion. :lol:

We could start a thread about evolution, with a geologist in the ranks. http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/b137.gif

[waste gate]

As part of its global disaster series the History Channel has included shows devoted to the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age claiming that these periods of history really did occur and were responsible for growth of civilizations during the warm periods and plaques and deaths from starvation on the cold periods. They claim that the Medieval Warm Period was a time of plenty when Vikings settled Greenland and the Little Ice Age as a time when the Vikings perished in Greenland, the Mayan civilization disappeared and cold temperatures caused failure of grain crops in Europe causing starvation and the onset of the Black Plague.

These periods of time are vehemently denied by the International Panel on Climate Control and Al Gore’s office. These supposed periods of history are at odds with the models and theories of the IPCC and with Al Gore’s movie “The Inconvenient Truth” These organizations consider these periods of history as anecdotal or they never did exist.

The IPCC has issued a statement urging protests and a boycott of the History Channel unless these fictitious and outlandish tales are stopped at once. These depictions of history cannot be accurate as they do not fit our model and therefore must be inaccurate. We are demanding that they stop the showing of these programs and replace them with documentaries that show there were hidden areas of earth outside that of known civilizations that experienced historically cold temperatures to balance the record of known civilizations. A UN spokesman also said that there would be an emergency meeting of the IPCC as soon as the weather cools enough to for the members to go to Hawaii.

Al Gore’s office issued a statement saying, “These programs by the History Channel are blatantly fictitious and have been proven false by my many lectures, books and by my movie The Inconvenient Truth. These are settled matters and the only question is what we do now, not what happened in the past. I urge everyone to boycott The History Channel and remember to come to my concerts in July which will prove how warm the earth is getting. Buy your tickets now while they last and don’t forget, I haven’t ruled out running in ‘08 completely.”

[Thniper]

Interesting thread here. Enjoyed reading very much!

I would like to know if anyone here is a 'real' scientist by profession?

Well, concerning me, I'm a geologist.;)

Thniper

...

No, thats why all the confusion. :lol:

We could start a thread about evolution, with a geologist in the ranks. http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/b137.gif

That thread would be even more 'theoretical' than this one here, hehehe :lol:
But if you like I'll join in...

.

[Fish]

[:lol:
But if you like I'll join in...

.

No, but it come's along sooner or later. :know:

[Heibges]

This talks about how Rain Forests are better than Northern Forests at reducing Global Warming.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109647&org=NSF&from=news

[Tchocky]

Any source for that rubbish, waste?

I found a post on comcast forums, that's about it

*ignores*

[waste gate]

Any source for that rubbish, waste?

I found a post on comcast forums, that's about it

*ignores*

It was satire T. (trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly). Someone sent it to me.

[Tchocky]

I think my sense of humour is dying by the day :(

Sooner or later I'll be taking everything seriously.

[waste gate]

I think my sense of humour is dying by the day :(

Sooner or later I'll be taking everything seriously.

Sometimes I feel the same buddy!

[August]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21977114-27197,00.html

][/B]KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming. When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to pay attention.
In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.

[Tchocky]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21977114-27197,00.html

Wow, I don't know who this Carter chap is, but I wonder if he's always this selective in his quotes.
I'm not sure what his motives are, but comparing the original post by Trenberth to Carter's representation of it, I can't help but see paragraphs and quotes being wrought to fit a conclusion.

Just from a cursory glance at the two side-by-side

GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate". Strange that. I could have sworn that I heard somewhere that the science was supposed to be settled. Now compare this with the source text. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html)

The IPCC report makes it clear that there is a substantial future commitment to further climate change even if we could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And the commitment is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. Thus future climate change is guaranteed.
So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM.pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.
However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.
Science is never "done", that much is clear. A semantic disagreement between "settled" and "consensus" does not say what Carter would like it to.

[waste gate]

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

[August]

Science is never "done", that much is clear. A semantic disagreement between "settled" and "consensus" does not say what Carter would like it to.

So the general idea, if i understand it correctly, is that Trenberth believes we have no reliable means for measuring climate change, or the human impact upon it, but since we do produce greenhouse gasses man must have some effect upon that change.

And this is what we're expected to make national policy with?

No matter how much they try to limit our "carbon footprint", unless they first find some way to stop the never ending increase in the global human population their efforts are doomed to failure. Every new person born will just add more to our overall output.

[Tchocky]

So the general idea, if i understand it correctly, is that Trenberth believes we have no reliable means for measuring climate change, or the human impact upon it, but since we do produce greenhouse gasses man must have some effect upon that change. Um, no. The article (source, not Carter's....thing) discusses the weaknesses in climate prediction modelling, nothing about measuring what is already happening. The thrust of the paper is healthy and grounded, we don't know everything, and it's dangerous to assume we do. The final paragraphs make clear the necessity for a comprehensive climate model. A model that we don't currently have. The flaws in current climate modeling are well illustrated in the article
However, when the best information to hand suggests a serious situation, as it does with climate change, you have to act. Not-complete information is often confused for contrary information.

And this is what we're expected to make national policy with? Well, global policy. And yes.
So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.
No matter how much they try to limit our "carbon footprint", unless they first find some way to stop the never ending increase in the global human population their efforts are doomed to failure. Every new person born will just add more to our overall output. That depends on the future energy consumption model of each future child. Which depends on the energy models of their parents, us.
We've already started to combat this future problem, sixteen thousand children die every day of hunger.
Actually, I've no idea how population growth will affect/be affected by global warming.

[August]

however, when the best information to hand suggests a serious situation, as it does with climate change, you have to act. Not-complete information is often confused for contrary information.
No we don't have to do anything Tchocky. The best information at hand not that long ago once suggested an impending ice age but it would have been disasterous to act upon it. Who knows? Maybe they were right and the increased carbon output is what is staving off it's onset.

Well, global policy. And yes.
There is no such thing as "global policy". Last I checked my country was still a sovereign nation. I for one will fight to keep it that way.

So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

Yeah well when they get it together then maybe something will get done, at least on a "sectoral" basis, but you don't screw with economies on someones guesses.

That depends on the future energy consumption model of each future child. Which depends on the energy models of their parents, us.
We've already started to combat this future problem, sixteen thousand children die every day of hunger.

That's your plan? Reducing global population by starving children to death? Maybe that works in China but then again as a "developing nation" they aren't the ones being asked to risk destroying their economy with half baked schemes either, not that they would.

Actually, I've no idea how population growth will affect/be affected by global warming.

That's my point. We don't know, yet acccording to some we're supposed to put our people at risk anyways. That's not going to happen.

[Tchocky]

No we don't have to do anything Tchocky. The best information at hand not that long ago once suggested an impending ice age but it would have been disasterous to act upon it. Who knows? Maybe they were right and the increased carbon output is what is staving off it's onset. Well, I would say that the current general ideas on global warming demand action. It looks serious enough to warrant action, such as moving to renewable energy, investment in energy efficiency etc. Of course, nation by nation this can make little difference. Global warming requires a global response. Yes, the US is a sovereign nation. But the residuals that are pumped into the air/sea by the US affect more than one country. the same goes for every country, especially large polluters.
Those who were forecasting an ice age in the 70's had not nearly the same backing or support that exists today. Comparing the two is disingenous.
I for one will fight to keep it that way. Ok, lets not start fighting quite yet.
Yeah well when they get it together then maybe something will get done, at least on a "sectoral" basis, but you don't screw with economies on someones guesses. Actually, most economic policy is based on theories and models. And when it isnt, guesses.
The same way you make estimates on the effects of a policy. Based on a model. Models aren't always perfect, so we develop new ones. I think the thrust of Trenberth's article was the weakness of current models, and nothing to do with measuring current climate change.
That's your plan? Reducing global population by starving children to death? Agh. No.Maybe that works in China but then again as a "developing nation" they aren't the ones being asked to risk destroying their economy with half baked schemes either, not that they would. yeah, China needs to be on board. They aren't being pressed nearly hard enough.
Actually, I've no idea how population growth will affect/be affected by global warming. That's my point. We don't know, yet acccording to some we're supposed to put our people at risk anyways. That's not going to happen.No, I said that I don't know. Also, how can getting off of fossil fuels (which are undeniably bad for the planet, and us) put us at risk?

EDIT - here's a little link on the 1970's "Ice Age" stuff

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

And from RealClimate - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[August]

Interesting blog.

This guy has been looking at the NOAA/NCDC weather data collection stations in California and Nevada. What he found was that many of them are placed in exhausts of air conditioning systems, poorly maintained etc. skewing the temp records that NOAA/NCDC use to "prove" global warming.

NOAA's reaction? Pull the location information off the net for "privacy and security" reasons. Access to the listing of sites has since been restored after he pointed out that their argument was bunk.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

Interesting site, complete with photos. Not Goracle approved.

[waste gate]

Once again Algore shows how his crusade is about wealth building......his own.

Live Earth will send proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization chaired by Gore.

http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=73429

[Tchocky]

ACP isn't the only organisation that will be getting the proceeds from Live Earth, but it is a recipient.

Also, the money won't be going straight into Gore's pockets. Check the sub-headline - http://grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/19/gore/index.html

@ August - That's unsettling stuff.

[waste gate]

ACP isn't the only organisation that will be getting the proceeds from Live Earth, but it is a recipient.

Also, the money won't be going straight into Gore's pockets. Check the sub-headline - http://grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/19/gore/index.html

@ August - That's unsettling stuff.

I see the sub-headline, but nowhere in the body of the story does it mention what that 'big' money figure is. I do see alot of money being given to the Alliance for Climate Protection, however.

[Tchocky]

From the article, just about halfway down

Exactly how this money will be spent remains to be seen, and is a subject of some controversy. Schweiger estimated that "more than 60 percent of the funding will go to national and local media projects aimed at mass persuasion," and the rest would be allocated to grassroots groups and institutions that are working to educate the public about climate change.

Gore has been a strong proponent of using paid advertising. He and some board members said the alliance could do for climate change what the Truth Campaign, launched in 1999, has been credited with doing for the anti-smoking crusade -- trigger a cultural and political shift with print and television advertising.

I'd be interested if you could back up your assertion that this is about wealth creation.

[waste gate]

From the article, just about halfway down

Exactly how this money will be spent remains to be seen, and is a subject of some controversy. Schweiger estimated that "more than 60 percent of the funding will go to national and local media projects aimed at mass persuasion," and the rest would be allocated to grassroots groups and institutions that are working to educate the public about climate change.

Gore has been a strong proponent of using paid advertising. He and some board members said the alliance could do for climate change what the Truth Campaign, launched in 1999, has been credited with doing for the anti-smoking crusade -- trigger a cultural and political shift with print and television advertising.

I'd be interested if you could back up your assertion that this is about wealth creation.


I'm sorry I have to laugh at myself over this one.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I forgot that they were spending money other people earned. Always easier to spend other peoples money. Where is that other 40% going?

[Tchocky]

Well, it hardly sells anything. So there's no income bar that which is donated. No idea where the other 40% goes. Administration?

[August]

I have 100 acres of Maine forest constantly soaking up excess carbon. I wonder how i can cash in on this carbon credit scheme? :hmm:

[August]

Seriously, here's an excellent article on the problems and fallacies regarding carbon offsetting schemes...

http://www.faircompanies.com/main.aspx?uc=notampl&sec=1&id=252 (http://www.faircompanies.com/main.aspx?uc=notampl&sec=1&id=252)

[Fish]

Seriously, here's an excellent article on the problems and fallacies regarding carbon offsetting schemes...

http://www.faircompanies.com/main.aspx?uc=notampl&sec=1&id=252

Server Error in '/' Application.

[August]

Seriously, here's an excellent article on the problems and fallacies regarding carbon offsetting schemes...

http://www.faircompanies.com/main.aspx?uc=notampl&sec=1&id=252
Server Error in '/' Application.

Sorry it keep trunctuating the link even if i try to make it just text.

I blame Al Gore...

[Skybird]

Latest research data published, adressing some claims concerning links between global climate and sun activity:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

[NefariousKoel]

Once again Algore shows how his crusade is about wealth building......his own.

Live Earth will send proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization chaired by Gore.

http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=73429
That guy is starting to p!ss me off. If people can't see how others profit from this, then I hope they send the crooks their money. Carbon Tax? LOL. Nobody starts a business without the intent of making money.

[Tchocky]

Nonprofit businesses tend to be different, Koel.

I'm sure there are easier ways for Gore to make money.

[Jimbuna]

He need look no further than his nemesis Bush for the answer to that one ;)

[August]

The Y2K bugs effect on the global warming debate:

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

[waste gate]

Time to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide!

[JSLTIGER]

Time to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide!
If you really want to, you could always attempt that ban yourself...let us know how its going after a coupla days...:p

[Tchocky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6944401.stm

[Sea Demon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6944401.stm

Sounds familiar. :roll:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

[Onkel Neal]

I read a report that suggests dramatic changes in the Arctic:

The Arctic ice cap is decreasing in thickness and area of coverage, a phenomena highlighted in recent news articles and a fact confirmed by an increasing body of data gathered by the National Ice Center (NIC)/Naval Ice Center (NAVICE) in Suitland, Maryland. Vessels and aircraft operating in the Arctic have reported diminished summer ice coverage and scientific models consistently suggest that seasonal sea lanes through the formerly ice-locked Arctic may appear as soon as 2015. It is postulated that summertime disappearance of the ice cap could be possible by 2050 if this trend continues.

Today, most of the Arctic is inaccessible for all or most of the year because of the ice coverage. As the icecap recedes and more of the Arctic becomes ice-free for a longer period each year, more and more vessels (and aircraft) from many nations will operate in the region.

Over the next 20 years, the volume of Arctic sea ice will further decrease
approximately 40%, and the lateral extent of sea ice will be sharply reduced (at least 20%) in summer.

Polar low-pressure systems will become more common and boundary layer forced convection will increase mixed (ice-water) precipitation. Cloudiness will increase, extending the summer cloudy regime through earlier onset and later decline.

Within five years, the Northern Sea Route (NSR, a.k.a. the Northeast Passage) will be open to non-icestrengthened vessels for at least two months each summer. Records for 1961-1990 over the central Arctic Ocean, collected as part of the Russian "North Pole" drifting station program, show statistically-significant increases in temperature of 0.89 deg. C and 0.43 deg. C per decade for May and June, respectively. Temperature increases during this period are also significant for summer as a whole. A different analysis for the period 1979-1997, based on a combination of temperature data from the North Pole program, drifting buoys and land stations, reveals statistically significant trends over most of the Arctic Ocean in spring, locally exceeding 2.5 deg. C per decade. This is consistent with indications based on satellite passive microwave records of an earlier onset of spring melt over the sea ice cover and is likely also related to reductions in sea ice extent of about 3% per decade since 1979 as assessed from satellite records. Temperature trends over the Arctic Ocean are broadly consistent those over land. Land records show pronounced warming from about 1970 onwards (mostly in winter and spring), over Siberia and Northwestern North America. The general pattern of warming is partly compensated by cooling trends over eastern Canada and the northern North
Atlantic. It is important to note that in terms of 55-85 deg. N zonal averages, temperatures around 1970 were below average. Hence, what we've really seen is (in part) a recovery from anomalously cold conditions. It also appears that from 1920-1940, Arctic temperatures rose even more sharply than in the past several decades. On the other hand, the paleo-climate records suggests that today's Arctic temperatures are the highest of at least the past 400 years, possibly longer.

[waste gate]

I read a report that suggests dramatic changes in the Arctic:

The Arctic ice cap is decreasing in thickness and area of coverage, a phenomena highlighted in recent news articles and a fact confirmed by an increasing body of data gathered by the National Ice Center (NIC)/Naval Ice Center (NAVICE) in Suitland, Maryland. Vessels and aircraft operating in the Arctic have reported diminished summer ice coverage and scientific models consistently suggest that seasonal sea lanes through the formerly ice-locked Arctic may appear as soon as 2015. It is postulated that summertime disappearance of the ice cap could be possible by 2050 if this trend continues.

Today, most of the Arctic is inaccessible for all or most of the year because of the ice coverage. As the icecap recedes and more of the Arctic becomes ice-free for a longer period each year, more and more vessels (and aircraft) from many nations will operate in the region.

Over the next 20 years, the volume of Arctic sea ice will further decrease
approximately 40%, and the lateral extent of sea ice will be sharply reduced (at least 20%) in summer.

Polar low-pressure systems will become more common and boundary layer forced convection will increase mixed (ice-water) precipitation. Cloudiness will increase, extending the summer cloudy regime through earlier onset and later decline.

Within five years, the Northern Sea Route (NSR, a.k.a. the Northeast Passage) will be open to non-icestrengthened vessels for at least two months each summer. Records for 1961-1990 over the central Arctic Ocean, collected as part of the Russian "North Pole" drifting station program, show statistically-significant increases in temperature of 0.89 deg. C and 0.43 deg. C per decade for May and June, respectively. Temperature increases during this period are also significant for summer as a whole. A different analysis for the period 1979-1997, based on a combination of temperature data from the North Pole program, drifting buoys and land stations, reveals statistically significant trends over most of the Arctic Ocean in spring, locally exceeding 2.5 deg. C per decade. This is consistent with indications based on satellite passive microwave records of an earlier onset of spring melt over the sea ice cover and is likely also related to reductions in sea ice extent of about 3% per decade since 1979 as assessed from satellite records. Temperature trends over the Arctic Ocean are broadly consistent those over land. Land records show pronounced warming from about 1970 onwards (mostly in winter and spring), over Siberia and Northwestern North America. The general pattern of warming is partly compensated by cooling trends over eastern Canada and the northern North
Atlantic. It is important to note that in terms of 55-85 deg. N zonal averages, temperatures around 1970 were below average. Hence, what we've really seen is (in part) a recovery from anomalously cold conditions. It also appears that from 1920-1940, Arctic temperatures rose even more sharply than in the past several decades. On the other hand, the paleo-climate records suggests that today's Arctic temperatures are the highest of at least the past 400 years, possibly longer.


Link please.

[Sea Demon]

I read a report that suggests dramatic changes in the Arctic:


There were reports like that in the 1920's. See my link above. :up:

[Onkel Neal]

Link: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icefree/FinalArcticReport.pdf (http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icefree/FinalArcticReport.pdf)

The US Navy is taking it seriously, they are ramping up for expanded naval ops in the Arctic.

[Onkel Neal]

I read a report that suggests dramatic changes in the Arctic:


There were reports like that in the 1920's. See my link above. :up:

Just because it was written in the 1920's does not mean it is not true today.

When I try to check that article, all I find are quotes from the Washington Times in forums. Other than the Washington Times, has that assertion been posted in any other credible news source? Has anyone been able to check the Washington Post edition sited?

[Sea Demon]

Link: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icefree/FinalArcticReport.pdf (http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icefree/FinalArcticReport.pdf)

The US Navy is taking it seriously, they are ramping up for expanded naval ops in the Arctic.

I'll have to read it. But skimming through it a little, it doesn't look like it's a report ala Al Gore if you get my drift. I'm not sure they take the stand of the global warming lunatics about man-made warming. Plus, I wonder how much this symposium was done for some political purposes. Remember, the enviro's have sued the navy to stop them from training with active sonar.

[Sea Demon]

Just because it was written in the 1920's does not mean it is not true today.


You're right. But it does show that atmospheric fluctuations have been happening for a long time. Long before the "global warming movement" arrived.

[Tchocky]

Well, SD, melting Arctic ice in the 1920's is not the same as record lows today.

[Tchocky]

It's fairly one-sided and easy to dismiss if you are of the opposite suggested persuasion, but life is like that, and more so by the day.

What is?

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

[Sea Demon]

It's fairly one-sided and easy to dismiss if you are of the opposite suggested persuasion, but life is like that, and more so by the day.

What is?

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

How much financial support do you think is going into the "global warming movement"? And from how many sources pushing it's theories? If you don't think they're not a "well-funded machine" in and of itself, you're fooling yourself. There is a ton of money going in that direction. ;)

[Tchocky]

Of course it's a movement with strong financial backing. Through taxes and fundraisers a lot of money can be raised. Events such as live Earth, awful as it was, raise money. Whereas on the deniers side you'll find it's streams of cash from fossil-fuel groups. As far as i can see, there's only one professional scientific society that is not in agreement with the IPCC, and it's the Petroleum Geologists. And they're reviewing their position.

Calling it the global warming movement is rather inaccurate, the Earth is warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not seems to be the current debate.
I say debate, but it's a bit of a shoddy one, with one side very much composed of special interest groups.

[Tchocky]

Bad bad news (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/17/arctic-ice-coverage-will-shrink-to-2050-projections-this-summer/)

[Onkel Neal]

Bad bad news (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/17/arctic-ice-coverage-will-shrink-to-2050-projections-this-summer/)

Yeah, but I wonder, why is it the shorelines are basically unchanged? I've heard from Global Warning believers that the melting iceaps would cause the sea level to grow dramatically...Strange.

[Tchocky]

Well Arctic ice melt will not influence sea levels nearly as much as that of Antarctic ice, seeing as it's already displacing water. The real danger here is the loss of the reflective nature of the ice, instead we'll have more heat-absorbing ocean.

[waste gate]

Coldest August Day in NYC in Almost a Century

Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67.


:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/21/coldest-august-day-nyc-almost-century

[August]

Yeah it's been a cool summer throughout the northeast. Buddy of mine tells me they already had a frost up in Maine.

[The Avon Lady]

Seems like Philadelphia is warming up (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a71_1187386256). :88)

Or maybe melting down.

[waste gate]

Kyoto calamity

The fact is that except for the exempt nations, no Kyoto ratifier can do what it is supposed to under the treaty without inflicting severe damage on its economy.



http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/08/27/opinion/280299.txt

[Tchocky]

My biggest issue with Kyoto is that international flights are not counted, simply because they can't decide how to assign their damages to nations.

Agreed on the economy, though. There's no way to significantly fight anthopogenic climate change without fundamentally altering our economic models.
Still, we can't eat or breathe money.

[Captain Scribb]

There seems to be a total lack of understanding as to the difference of climate and weather in this thread.

Also, there is a mixed message of "global warming isn't real/It's natural anyway/but doing anything will kill the global economy" combo argument, which effectively reveals a lot of bias and lack of objective opinion.

[Sea Demon]

Not so much of a consensus after all. :)

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

Most published scientists do not subscribe to global warming theories. Viewpoints are changing.

[Tchocky]

I've looked at that article, Sea Demon, and it's quite revelatory.

*Although*

Trying to chase up the original post, I found myself at the Science & Public Policy Institute, and it's "consensus" paper. The SPPI? Oil & gas funded think-tank.

Paper - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

Check the tone.

This was written by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a bit of a joke (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) to climate scientists. his scientific training is in classics. But he has another qualification. Journalism. Reporting the Trojan war, perfect. Scientific papers on climate change, 100% useless. His scientific articles have been ridiculed, here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947246,00.html) for example.

Listen to this from the head of the SPPI
Robert Ferguson, SPPI president, said: “In these excellent papers, Christopher Monckton presents his powerful case ad rem, not ad hominem – he addresses the facts, but does not attack the person. He is refreshingly different from other public figures who are apparently incapable of debating the science. Al Gore is still dodging Lord Monckton’s open invitation to public debate, preferring to cower behind the Maginot Line of a ‘consensus’ which, if it ever existed, is now in tatters. Does he sound rational and fair-minded? Seriously?
I'm not saying that this story, Dr Shulte's study, is wrong. But it seems rather interesting that I always end up at either an incompetent and biased source, or James Inhofe's webpage.

Oh yeah, this Inhofe
Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.
Again, nothing is disproved here. I spent six or seven minutes with my friend google, and I'm not bothered going further. But the circumstantial evidence is rather nasty.

[Sea Demon]

Fair enough Tchocky. Just wanted to show that there is no consensus. There is indeed alot of disagreement and skepticism.

[Tchocky]

Fair enough Tchocky. Just wanted to show that there is no consensus. There is indeed alot of disagreement and skepticism.True, there is never 100% certainty, that would be silly.
However, in my experience there are many groups who are prejudiced towards a certain outcome, due to financial/political pressures, and these groups nearly always fall on the skeptic side of the argument.
Of course, there are legitimate objections to anthropogenic climate change, but these tend to get drowned out by prejudiced thinktanks and politicians in the pay of energy corporations. Such as the SPPI and our friend Inhofe. You just don't get meddling on this scale or nature on the other side. There is the odd story about modifying results while wrangling for research funds, but this is nothing like the amount of money that hydrocarbon dealers put into the debate.
The great thing about science is that it only asks for your eyes, not your beliefs. Unfortunately it's seen as a political football by too many people, who are happy to hit their opponents for doing too much/too little about the problem while the Earth sweats itself past event horizon.

Regarding the original story, I'm a little too supicious of where it came from to take it very seriously. That may well change.

[The Avon Lady]

Remember, you read it at the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/one_planet.shtml). :yep:

[Captain Scribb]

Global Climate Change is not reflected by a single day's temperature in a particular place. That's called "weather." I can just as easily counter that this has been one of the dryest summers in the southeast United States in the last 100 years, with records of consecutive 100 degree weather set. Likewise, that in and of itself doesn't prove GCC. I have yet to read an intelligent logical argument against GCC in THIS thread. Merely some who dismiss on the basis of ignorance and stubborness.

[August]

Global Climate Change is not reflected by a single day's temperature in a particular place. That's called "weather." I can just as easily counter that this has been one of the dryest summers in the southeast United States in the last 100 years, with records of consecutive 100 degree weather set. Likewise, that in and of itself doesn't prove GCC. I have yet to read an intelligent logical argument against GCC in THIS thread. Merely some who dismiss on the basis of ignorance and stubborness.

Maybe you should reread the whole thread because I don't think anyone is arguing against climate change, only it's causes.

[Tchocky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.

[August]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.

100% agreement there. No energy saving/carbon reduction scheme is going to work as long as population growth remains unchecked.

[Captain Scribb]

Respectfully, I have read the entire thread and was responding to the multiple instances where specific weather at a particular area was stated as if it was evidence for or against GCC.

And there are, in fact, posts in this thread arguing against GCC. I am a bit confused as to how you think there aren't.

Reducing population growth wouldn't matter either, if we kept using fossil fuels.

[TteFAboB]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.

100% agreement there. No energy saving/carbon reduction scheme is going to work as long as population growth remains unchecked.

That is all fine and dandy to keep the population stable, but the point is that there are too many people already, as Cpt. Scribb points out.

What needs to be changed is the position towards suicide. We need to start looking at suicide and euthanasia in a new light, and we need to remove our prejudice against the Nazi recycle of dead bodies. If people started suiciding more and their corpses were put to a good use we would depend less on fossil fuels, and since it would all be voluntary, there would be nothing wrong with it.

[The Avon Lady]

Global Climate Change is not reflected by a single day's temperature in a particular place. That's called "weather." I can just as easily counter that this has been one of the dryest summers in the southeast United States in the last 100 years, with records of consecutive 100 degree weather set. Likewise, that in and of itself doesn't prove GCC. I have yet to read an intelligent logical argument against GCC in THIS thread. Merely some who dismiss on the basis of ignorance and stubborness.
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9452/16203161au5.gif

[The Avon Lady]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.

100% agreement there. No energy saving/carbon reduction scheme is going to work as long as population growth remains unchecked.
I.T.D.S. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760).

[The Avon Lady]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.

100% agreement there. No energy saving/carbon reduction scheme is going to work as long as population growth remains unchecked.

That is all fine and dandy to keep the population stable, but the point is that there are too many people already, as Cpt. Scribb points out.

What needs to be changed is the position towards suicide. We need to start looking at suicide and euthanasia in a new light, and we need to remove our prejudice against the Nazi recycle of dead bodies. If people started suiciding more and their corpses were put to a good use we would depend less on fossil fuels, and since it would all be voluntary, there would be nothing wrong with it.
Close enough (http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2007/09/04/EditorialOpinion/Right.To.Death-2947694.shtml).

[August]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.
100% agreement there. No energy saving/carbon reduction scheme is going to work as long as population growth remains unchecked.
That is all fine and dandy to keep the population stable, but the point is that there are too many people already, as Cpt. Scribb points out.

Well we can't stop world population from growing let alone keep it stable so the point is moot. In any case if global warming is caused by humans it's the numbers far more than how much each individual contributes which is the point i'm trying to make.

What needs to be changed is the position towards suicide. We need to start looking at suicide and euthanasia in a new light, and we need to remove our prejudice against the Nazi recycle of dead bodies. If people started suiciding more and their corpses were put to a good use we would depend less on fossil fuels, and since it would all be voluntary, there would be nothing wrong with it.

Ok now you're being a bit wierd...

[August]

I.T.D.S. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760).

It's got nothing to do with demographics AL. Too many of one group is as bad as too many of any other group.

[The Avon Lady]

I.T.D.S. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760).

It's got nothing to do with demographics AL. Too many of one group is as bad as too many of any other group.
Well then, toodaloo! ;)

[The Avon Lady]

How many people here heard/read/saw the story about the melting Northwest Passage on radio, TV or in the paper? Raise you hand!

:rock:

Now, how many people heard anything about this (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent) in the mass media?

<insert sound of crickets here>

[Tchocky]

Well, the different nature of the Arctic ice fields makes for better news coverage, it's a bit more dramatic :)
Example - if the Arctic continues to melt at the same rate, it could be clear by 2030.

from wiki Satellite data reported by NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) had shown evidence in 2002 that the total amount of ice in Antarctica had increased in the previous few decades[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-0). This was significant because there is a large amount of ice in the area and some climate models predicting global warming also predict that some of the most severe warming should occur in Antarctica. On the other hand, a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica so the ice sheet would in fact grow and could somewhat counteract rising sea levels[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-BASurvey). However, more recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-1). This melting ice could raise sea levels significantly if it continues. I can't find the paper that is linked for this idea, it's cited everywhere but seems to have moved.

The glciers are moving faster, too. That could lead to further sheet extent.

[Skybird]

How many people here heard/read/saw the story about the melting Northwest Passage on radio, TV or in the paper? Raise you hand!

:rock:

Now, how many people heard anything about this (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent) in the mass media?

<insert sound of crickets here>
Simple explanation, that is explained since several years, because since these several years it has been predicted - the growing global temperature causes the air over the southern pole to warm, too, that way the increased humidity in the atmosphere (from all that condensation due to warmer temperature) could reach deeper into the Antarctic, and rain and snow down there, due to the higher temperatures there. On the ground (the southen pole has landmasses), it freezes nevertheless. Over the next hundred years, the ice masses in the Antarctic are expected to increase by several thousand cubic miles and may even delay the raise of the sea level. Since the northpole does not consist of landmasses like the southern pole, you cannot see that effect in the north.

It's like with that argument that growing CO2 levels are good for increasing vegetation levels: it is a silly deception of the public by limiting the perspective to a timeframe that is too short to uncover the real longterm processes that are running. In the long run, the vegetation level sharply decreases. And with the Antartic increase of ice levels - the event does not mean there is no global warming - the very existence of the growing ice masses proves that global warming takes place. As I said, it is old news. Saw it on TV several years ago! I still was in Osnabrück, that makes it at least 8 years.

[Skybird]

Reducing population growth wouldn't matter either, if we kept using fossil fuels.
Indeed. Mind your that the minority of mankind in the west over the last decades has burned and consummed more resspurces than the majority rest of global population.

Now there are China. India. etc.

[kurtz]

Reducing population growth wouldn't matter either, if we kept using fossil fuels.
Indeed. Mind your that the minority of mankind in the west over the last decades has burned and consummed more resspurces than the majority rest of global population.

Now there are China. India. etc.

So perhaps we should go with the sierra club with this and stop 3rd world immigration to the west. I mean if a person in the western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make no sense to bring people over here to increase there carbon footprint six fold.

Go figure Liberals:)

[Fish]

An other movie:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811

[Letum]

So perhaps we should go with the sierra club with this and stop 3rd world immigration to the west. I mean if a person in the western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make no sense to bring people over here to increase there carbon footprint six fold.


:hmm: And we could send you over to the 3rd world as well. I mean if a person in the
western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make sense send
people over there.

[August]

So perhaps we should go with the sierra club with this and stop 3rd world immigration to the west. I mean if a person in the western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make no sense to bring people over here to increase there carbon footprint six fold.

:hmm: And we could send you over to the 3rd world as well. I mean if a person in the
western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make sense send
people over there.

I'd like to see you try it.

England tried something like that twice already and look how it worked out.

[Letum]

So perhaps we should go with the sierra club with this and stop 3rd world immigration to the west. I mean if a person in the western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make no sense to bring people over here to increase there carbon footprint six fold.

:hmm: And we could send you over to the 3rd world as well. I mean if a person in the
western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make sense send
people over there.

I'd like to see you try it.

England tried something like that twice already and look how it worked out.

I was just taking the mick. ;)

Tried what? How?

[gordonmull]

Well folks the Earth is warming, the sea is rising, the glaciers are melting. We have temperature records for the present and we have ice core records, tree rings, sea shells, seeds, spores and sediments for the past that all tell their paleoclimatic story. We have sea level monitoring stations which, albeit a new thing in a geological timescale, show a general rise since records did begin.

As to the weather? (I'm in Scotland) I've seen snow in June. A winter without a speck of the stuff on the mountains. Trees leafing in January. It does stuff like that. Weather is what you see today and climate is an average of weather over time. Don't worry about a mild winter because in a few years time you'll be freezing you b*lls off!

Interestingly enough, the Milankovitch cycles (which I won't go into in detail here but google them if you're interested) suggest that the Earth should in fact be going through a cooling phase just now - hence the ice age predictions in the in the latter part of last centuary.

Really I don't think that there is enough evidence to suggest that mankind is causing the effects we are seeing today. The IPPC's models aren't great and the system is too complex, eg a change in ocean currents can have a dramtic effect on climate but this system is poorly understood and seperate from the atmosphere where all the focus is.

Although the evidence for a human infuence is not complete it would be foolish to just dismiss it all. Better to be cautious and if it turns out wrong to say "Dam we were wrong" than to suffer the effects of a hostile environment.

[Jimbuna]

So perhaps we should go with the sierra club with this and stop 3rd world immigration to the west. I mean if a person in the western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make no sense to bring people over here to increase there carbon footprint six fold.

:hmm: And we could send you over to the 3rd world as well. I mean if a person in the
western world uses 6 times the energy of a 3rd world person it would make sense send
people over there.

I'd like to see you try it.

England tried something like that twice already and look how it worked out.

I was just taking the mick. ;)

Tried what? How?

Allow me to stab (no pun intended) a guess at America and Australia :hmm: :lol:

[waste gate]

I believe this as much as global warming. Concensus? (I think I spelled it correctly this time, [Concensus]).

http://video.woodtv.com/inc/player.php?video_id=8974

[STEED]

in a few years time you'll be freezing you b*lls off!

You may be but us folk in the south of England winter will be wall to wall. :sunny: :sunny: