Global Warming

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

Are you a goldfish? Its answered every time we have one of these threads.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?9263-Global-Warming/page6

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html

Sounds daft but according to NASA Novermber was the hottest on record...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw. Several ideas about possible effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice on weather patterns are discussed in papers referenced by Overland, Wang and Walsh.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

While 2009 showed a slowdown in the rate of annual air temperature increases in the Arctic, the first half of 2010 shows a near record pace with monthly anomalies of over 4°C in northern Canada. There continues to be significant excess heat storage in the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer due to continued near-record sea ice loss. There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. Winter 2009-2010 showed a new connectivity between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic; the so-called Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern.

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

just for you:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britain-trapped-under-two-feet-of-global-warming-bull****-201011253286/

I'd like St George to respond to this thread with some links from dubious source websites.

While we're on the subject, is St George john nada? I'm certain that he is.

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

It's quite simple, Global Warming is neither consistent across the globe, nor consistent in it's upward path. The models quite clearly predict cold periods, including unseasonal episodes like the UK is currently experiencing. This does nothing to detract from the basic science, nor the overall tendencies to warmer global temperatures.

It's quite simple, Global Warming is neither consistent across the globe, nor consistent in it's upward path. The models quite clearly predict cold periods, including unseasonal episodes like the UK is currently experiencing. This does nothing to detract from the basic science, nor the overall tendencies to warmer global temperatures.

Indeed. Just has it has done over the last 12 million years or so.

Indeed. Just has it has done over the last 12 million years or so.

..which the scientists take into account when doing their measurements.

..which the scientists take into account when doing their measurements.

Thanks, I should have been a bit clearer.

The problems with the deniers is they cannot see what is really happening, their heads are firmly buried in the dunes. ( Pun on our favourite right-wing wind-up merchant is fully intended ).

Thanks, I should have been a bit clearer.

 

The problems with the deniers is they cannot see what is really happening, their heads are firmly buried in the dunes. ( Pun on our favourite right-wing wind-up merchant is fully intended ).

Sorry. I forgot having an alternative view was frowned upon on here. I've had a word with myself and am now happy to report that I will accept that whatever you say and the sources you quote are correct and unchallengeable.

I can't say I won't miss debating different opinions but it's much nicer for everyone to agree on everything so it's for the greater good.

;-)

Picking up from badgerx16. The term 'global warming' is somewhat misleading for this very reason. Climate change will include a gradual warming of the planet, but there will be cold winters, increased storms (hurricanes etc), basically weather going mental.

Trousers, I wouldn't call yours an 'alternative view'. Among my friends, workmates etc belief in man-made climate change is the exception not the norm. This seems to be the case in the UK at least.

I would point out that when you talk about Global Warming, the clue in all this is the word Global.

Global Warming/Cooling always happens. Always has. Always will. The debate is whether it is anthropogenic or not.

PS - this cold winter is really the weather rather than climate.

Sorry. I forgot having an alternative view was frowned upon on here. I've had a word with myself and am now happy to report that I will accept that whatever you say and the sources you quote are correct and unchallengeable.

 

I can't say I won't miss debating different opinions but it's much nicer for everyone to agree on everything so it's for the greater good.

 

;-)

Trousers, you are fully entitled to your view, and I don't mind debating with folks who understand that alternative opinions are acceptable, ( even if it can at times descend into a 'my quote is better than your quote' playground spat ). As was hinted at in my post, there are certain 'deniers' on here, St George being probably the most vociferous, who are vehemently dismissive, tending to the abusive, towards people who have the temerity to differ in their interpretation of the situation.

Trousers, you are fully entitled to your view, and I don't mind debating with folks who understand that alternative opinions are acceptable, ( even if it can at times descend into a 'my quote is better than your quote' playground spat ). As was hinted at in my post, there are certain 'deniers' on here, St George being probably the most vociferous, who are vehemently dismissive, tending to the abusive, towards people who have the temerity to differ in their interpretation of the situation.

Indeed. It is usually the most vociferous deniers, such as St George, who refuse to answer difficult questions about their position and have extreme difficulty accepting reason and logic.

It is a scientifically observable fact that the higher the concentration of CO2 in air, the more heat that air retains, and there can be no doubt that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has risen sharply since the times of the industrial revolution. The only question appears to be whether or not that has made or is making a contribution to the current changes to the global climate. It is true that the Earth goes through natural changes to the climate and it is also true that we are still, technically, not out of the last ice age yet. However, I firmly believe that been if there is just the slightest chance that human activity is contributing to the environmental changes then we should do everything we can to minimise any effect that might have.

The other major aspect of this debate that often gets forgotten, is the fact that there is only a finite amount of fossil fuels available that we can burn, so at some point ion the future we will be forced to switch to other forms of renewable energy anyway. With that being the case, why not invest in it now instead of in the future when the need becomes much more desperate. The benefits of this will be that we can slowly wean ourselves off our need for fossil fuels and we will be much better prepared when the day comes that there is no more oil or coal to burn.

I was very pleased to see on the news yesterday that EDF have announced they will be building two new nuclear plants in Somerset and Suffolk. Nuclear power may not be 100% clean, but it is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than coal or oil-fired power and I believe we should be putting more focus into this kind of energy while we develop more renewable sources.

Sorry. I forgot having an alternative view was frowned upon on here. I've had a word with myself and am now happy to report that I will accept that whatever you say and the sources you quote are correct and unchallengeable.

 

I can't say I won't miss debating different opinions but it's much nicer for everyone to agree on everything so it's for the greater good.

 

;-)

It's broad scientific consensus vs Tory-boy conspiracy nuts, trousers. You decide.

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

Global climate isn't actually the same thing as "the weather where you live".

It's broad scientific consensus vs Tory-boy conspiracy nuts, trousers. You decide.

For the record your honour, my position is not one of denial. I can understand the reason for your false assumption though ;-)

My position is thus: I accept that mankind has probably contributed in part to the temperature of your planet. However, my opinion, as a visitor to your planet, is that it doesn't matter in the general scheme of things. In other words, humans will either adapt to the change in temperature or they won't and another more adaptable species will come along and take your place. "Survival of the fittest" I believe one of your kind once called it.

That's what I mean by "this is pretty much how the planet has evolved over the last 12 million years or so"

So, to recap, there are three opinions up for discussion here:

(a) it's happening and it matters

(b) it's not happening

© it's happening but it doesn't matter in the general scheme of things

The sooner you humans accept you are part of nature and not external to nature the better IMHO.

Oops....missed the wink.....

;-)

Global climate isn't actually the same thing as "the weather where you live".

This. Whenever it snows you can always rely on some bright spark to say something like "so much for Global Warming then...."

This. Whenever it snows you can always rely on some bright spark to say something like "so much for Global Warming then...."

Much as you could rely on someone saying "This is all down to global warming" when we had a few warm summers a few years back.... ;-)

Why does no one on here actually discuss the SCIENCE in any of this - I mean the actual papers written on the subject, published in the respected journals?

Why does no one on here actually discuss the SCIENCE in any of this - I mean the actual papers written on the subject, published in the respected journals?

Science was invented by human beings and thus, by logical extension, is prone to fallibility.

Science was invented by human beings and thus, by logical extension, is prone to fallibility.

And declared fallible, presumably, by those sensible, well-rounded souls that inhabit Planet Lounge. That's alright then. I'll sleep more easily now. Nighty night.

So, to recap, there are three opinions up for discussion here:

 

(a) it's happening and it matters

(b) it's not happening

© it's happening but it doesn't matter in the general scheme of things

 

The sooner you humans accept you are part of nature and not external to nature the better IMHO.

That's a fair point, and I too often try to remind people that we are part of nature. There is often an air of superiority about many discussions to do with our presence and influence upon our surroundings, as though we are somehow seperate from nature. It's why I also try to stress the importance of sustainability and biodiversity across a wide range of subjects, not just the climate.

However, this does then lead to a discussion about the fact that we are probably (we can never know for certain) the only species that is *aware* of it's possible effect on the environment and what it needs to survive (in terms of the climate, as well as resources) therefore we should potentially have the ability to modify our behaviour for the benefit of the species.

Again, I'm not saying we will 'solve' any particular issue, nor make it possible for us to exist indefinitely, however I personally always come back to the fact that I feel I should do whatever I can to ensure that my children and their children etc, etc, do not have to cope with being the last generation of human on this planet, before we're extinct.

Science was invented by human beings and thus, by logical extension, is prone to fallibility.

It is also prone to being correct.

It is also prone to being correct.

If measured by the same species that invented it in the first place. Not very independent is it?

What you need is another species that have an equal intellegence level to that of humans who can then judge how good your scientific theories are.

The best you can do at the moment is ask a dolphin.....and what's the porpoise of that?

Indeed. Just has it has done over the last 12 million years or so.

Yes climate has natural cycles - long ones lasting 10s of thousands of years and shorter ones lasting a few hundred. That doesnt change the fact that putting gases into the atmosphere traps more heat and makes the climate different to what it would have been anyway. How warm you are in your house depends not only the temperature outside, but how well insulated it is. Greenhouse gases are insulation. They make the plant warmer than it would otherwise have been, regardless of natural fluctuations.

If measured by the same species that invented it in the first place. Not very independent is it?

 

What you need is another species that have an equal intellegence level to that of humans who can then judge how good your scientific theories are.

 

The best you can do at the moment is ask a dolphin.....and what's the porpoise of that?

Do you accept that the Earth orbits the Sun ? ( As proven by science ).

Do you accept that you require Oxygen to live ? ( As proven by science )

Do you accept that a kidney transplant can help extend a patient's life ? ( As proven by science )

All of these were born of theories, and all were initially dismissed as fanciful.

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

It's called Climate Change now to get around these embarrassingly (for the Global Warming Brigade) cold winters.

It's called Climate Change now to get around these embarrassingly (for the Global Warming Brigade) cold winters.

Of course, the scientific community is wrong and you are right.

Of course, the scientific community is wrong and you are right.

I work for an environmental charity. In my experience the vast majority of people who say climate change isnt real do so on the basis of what they see outside their bedroom window. The number of people who have read the science, understand the issues and still say climate change isnt real and isnt caused by ghg emissions is tiny.

I tell you what, if this is global warming, I'd like to see global colding! There's snow everywhere!

It's called Climate Change now to get around these embarrassingly (for the Global Warming Brigade) cold winters.

They're not embarrassing, they are perfectly predicted by the theories and the science. Try doing some research.

I work for an environmental charity.

You'll have to shake all the snow off those trees before you hug them or you'll catch a cold.

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

'Global Warming' causes melting of the ice caps, which dumps fresh water into the current that keeps Britain temperate: more fresh water means that this current shuts down and 'hey presto' cold(er) weather.

I work for an environmental charity. In my experience the vast majority of people who say climate change isnt real do so on the basis of what they see outside their bedroom window. The number of people who have read the science, understand the issues and still say climate change isnt real and isnt caused by ghg emissions is tiny.

I agree with you when you say that people look out the window and take the here and now.

But GG emissions.....at the moment the science bods are all excited about methane hydrates, which is something like 20 times worse than CO2, being released. I did ask one whether that was really a concern because methane hydrates' carbon isotope is 14 (as opposed 12 or 13) and this is radioactive. It has a half life which is 5730 years. When it depletes it turns to nitrogen. As it has been locked away for thousands of years, is this really going to cause any global warming? No one ever answered me, as it seemed to go against the scare stories. And then it appears that trees and plants are big producers of methane, although the bods have yet to decide. Seems that there is a lot to be decided!

'Global Warming' causes melting of the ice caps, which dumps fresh water into the current that keeps Britain temperate: more fresh water means that this current shuts down and 'hey presto' cold(er) weather.

Interesting story http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

EDIT - LOL check out the name of the sub!

I agree with you when you say that people look out the window and take the here and now.

 

But GG emissions.....at the moment the science bods are all excited about methane hydrates, which is something like 20 times worse than CO2, being released. I did ask one whether that was really a concern because methane hydrates' carbon isotope is 14 (as opposed 12 or 13) and this is radioactive. It has a half life which is 5730 years. When it depletes it turns to nitrogen. As it has been locked away for thousands of years, is this really going to cause any global warming? No one ever answered me, as it seemed to go against the scare stories. And then it appears that trees and plants are big producers of methane, although the bods have yet to decide. Seems that there is a lot to be decided!

Maybe is the definitive answer! A huge amount of methane is locked away in the Canadian and Russian permafrost and at very deep high pressure levels under the oceans. Methane is, as you say, around 2 0 times more powerful than CO2 as a ghg. However it breaks down more quickly, around 22 years for methane as opposed to over 100 years for C02. The impact on climate is hard to know. If the southern parts of Russian and Canadian tundra subsoil increases in temperature from -5 to -1 there wont really be an impact. If it increases from -5 to +0.5 ie the ground thaws it could have a devastating impact - potentially creating a self reinforcing spiral of methane relase creating more warming which melts more permafrost which releases more methane. Trees and plants dont create or destroy carbon during their lifecycle (they take it in as they grow and release it when they die - whether by rotting or burning).

The truth is no-one really knows what the combined effects of permafrost melting, polar ice caps melting and deforestation will be. But even the most benign scenarios indicate high freshwater stress and crop failures in some of the most densely populated regions on earth. At worst large regions could become desertified. Yes vast tracts of Canadian and Russian wilderness may well become habitable and attractive for the first time, but the social and economic problems of relocating perhaps two billion people dont bear thinking about.

Nobody has all the answers about exactly what will happen - there are too many variables. But given that the costs of adopting a low carbon economy are miniscule compared with the costs of social dislocation, it would be very strange indeed to do nothing.

but what about methane's isotopic value and it turning into nitrogen?

Methane is a hydrocarbon - ie its made up of molecules formed from hydrogen and carbon atoms. Nitrogen is a different element, one cant turn into the other, as the alchemists who tried to make gold from lead found out.

GREEN HYSTERIA MEANS WE FACE A BLEAK FUTURE

AS we shiver in the coldest start to winter in living memory, you may wonder whatever happened to global warming. Good news! Doomsday is indefinitely postponed. Three years ago, the UN inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (iPCC) made blood-curdling fore- casts of melting ice caps causing sea levels to rise 13ft by 2100. such low-lying countries as The Maldives and Bangladesh would be submerged. London and New York would be swamped.

Last week, the Met Office downgraded the prediction to a “worst case” threat of only 6ft. in a masterpiece of understatement, even this is said to be “unlikely” and a more plausible figure is eight inches. As this is just a game of think-of-a-number, we might as well consult Mystic Meg, especially as only five weeks ago the Met Office predicted a “milder than average winter”.

Will this chink of doubt silence the prophets of doom? No. There’s too much money at stake for that. Man-made global warming is a new religion whose high priests and acolytes’ well-paid jobs depend on propagating their vision of hell- fire and destruction.

As i write, 20,000 of them are basking in sunshine at the upmarket Mexican resort of Cancun for the latest iPCC junket. why aren’t such gatherings ever held in places like sunderland or Detroit, where the beach is likely to be less of a distraction?

Their jumbo jets roar on the Tarmac, the five-star hotels are all full and fleets of air- conditioned limos ensure the delegates never break into a sweat however warm the globe gets. so much for the fat-cat hypocrites’ own carbon footprint.

Dr vicky Pope, the Met Office’s chief guru on climate change, however, seems to have been a victim of global cooling. she got stuck in eight inches of snow at Gatwick. regrettably Chris huhne, the Climate Change secretary, did get to Can- cun to report on an “alarming pattern of extreme weather events” in Britain, causing insurers to pay £4.5billion for flood damage in the past 10 years compared with £1.5billion in the previous decade. he got these figures from an Association of British insurers report but what he didn’t say was that all of the increase was due to a single event: the floods of summer 2007 which cost £3billion. huhne failed to emphasise that these floods distorted the figures. he behaved just like the academics in the Climategate scandal who were recently exposed for using selective figures to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since 1995.

Full marks to Dr Pope for rapping huhne, by saying: “it is misleading to say the summer floods of 2007 were caused by climate change. Twenty years is a very short time to look for a signal of man-made climate change.” The ABi also said: “we were careful not to blame the increase on climate change. we are not climatologists. we always get episodes of bad weather in this country.”

Why didn’t huhne add these caveats? ex-Labour MP Phil woolas has been expelled from Parliament for lying about

his Lib Dem opponent. if a Lib Dem Cabi- net minister peddles lies about a major policy costing taxpayers billions of pounds a year shouldn’t he be chucked out, too? even if the warmists’ dire predictions were credible it would still be ridiculous to think we could influence the weather without dramatically culling the world’s population and reducing the survivors to pre-industrial revolution poverty. it beg- gars belief that, with a deficit of £150billion a year, the Government is still committed to spending £18.3billion annually to meet carbon-reduction targets in the last government’s Climate Change Act.

It is wrecking the countryside with for- ests of giant wind turbines and fields carpeted with black solar panels. At

stallingborough in Lincolnshire, a German company has applied for planning permis- sion for two 493ft turbines. Berkshire residents are fuming over plans for others 426ft tall, visible for more than 20 miles.

Yet none of this will do anything to “save the planet”. winds are so variable you have to duplicate power sources or lights will go off. similarly, we don’t get enough sun to make solar energy practicable.

A correspondent tells me that last Tues- day, the UK Grid reached its peak load of more than 60 gigawatts of electricity. wind power contributed only 133 megawatts of this, just 5.5 per cent of its theoretical maximum and a pathetic 0.2 per cent of the peak load. Yet we are all paying a stealth tax equal to eight per cent of our electricity bills for this under the renewables Obligation.

LOW-INCOME families and elderly people struggle to find the cash to keep warm while fat-cats like the

iPCC delegates swan around at taxpayers’ expense in the Mexican sunshine. “Green” energy is forcing millions more to live in fuel poverty and the Climate Change Act will make things worse still in the years ahead. For many families the paradoxical legacy of the global warming hysteria will be hypothermia.

As this is Christmas though, let me say i approve of some forms of carbon-capture. Over Yuletide i intend to improve my own carbon footprint. The gas in champagne is pure CO2 and i intend to capture as much as possible in my body.

if there were a subsidy for that under the Climate Change Act, even i might be prepared to support it.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/217018/Green-hysteria-means-we-face-a-bleak-future

Serious question Dune. Why do you believe the writings of a journo sat in an office, thinking how to appeal to his readership. Have you actually met any of them? They arent great intellectuals and for the most part dont even believe what they write, they simply follow the editorial line.

In fact why do you post pages of this tripe as if sheer volume somehow balances out actual findings and research from NASA or NOAA or 100 credible organisations? TBH it makes you seem a bit thick if you aren't able to distinguish between the respective value of the two.

Serious question Dune. Why do you believe the writings of a journo sat in an office, thinking how to appeal to his readership. Have you actually met any of them? They arent great intellectuals and for the most part dont even believe what they write, they simply follow the editorial line.

I don't believe in Man made global warming. I think it's natural and man has next to no influence on it. Locally yes man can affect climate - smog etc, but globally I don't buy it. There's a whole industry that is booming on this lie, backed up by scientists who have been proven to have exagerated figures. And then there's governments that see a brilliant opportunity for taxation.

but what about methane's isotopic value and it turning into nitrogen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

"There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, e.g. making up as much as 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere"

Don't think there is that much C14 locked up in the tundral CH4.

I don't believe in Man made global warming. I think it's natural and man has next to no influence on it. Locally yes man can affect climate - smog etc, but globally I don't buy it. There's a whole industry that is booming on this lie, backed up by scientists who have been proven to have exagerated figures. And then there's governments that see a brilliant opportunity for taxation.

Tell us then which parts you dont believe - that different gases in the atmosphere trap different amounts of heat; that cutting down forests doesnt impact climate. And if man can influence climate locally - and man is spread all over the globe - how come we cant influence it globally?

Forget the left wing crap and look at the facts.

Every warming and cooling in recorded history is linked to Sun spots.

Middle ages warm period - increase in sun spot activity

18th Century little Ice age - decrease in sunspot activity

1970's (when global cooling was in the news) - decrease in sunspot activity

Now - Increase in sunspot activity

The next decade - It will get cooler as sun spot activity is decreasing.

We're going to be hearing some right crap over the next few years as Scientists/governments backtrack and try to distance themselves form the stupidity of believing in man made global warming..

Forget the left wing crap and look at the facts.

 

Every warming and cooling in recorded history is linked to Sun spots.

 

Middle ages warm period - increase in sun spot activity

 

18th Century little Ice age - decrease in sunspot activity

 

1970's (when global cooling was in the news) - decrease in sunspot activity

 

Now - Increase in sunspot activity

 

The next decade - It will get cooler as sun spot activity is decreasing.

 

We're going to be hearing some right crap over the next few years as Scientists/governments backtrack and try to distance themselves form the stupidity of believing in man made global warming..

Jesus, even for you this is weak. What has party politics got to with it? There is no right / left divide on the issue. Adair Turner ex CBI and FSA; Sam Laidlaw CEO of Centrica; John Bond ex Chair HSBC and dozens of other business figures recongnize and accept the reality. All those points you trotted are well worn and thoroughly rebutted. Here for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Forget the left wing crap and look at the facts.

 

Every warming and cooling in recorded history is linked to Sun spots.

 

Middle ages warm period - increase in sun spot activity

 

18th Century little Ice age - decrease in sunspot activity

 

1970's (when global cooling was in the news) - decrease in sunspot activity

 

Now - Increase in sunspot activity

 

The next decade - It will get cooler as sun spot activity is decreasing.

 

We're going to be hearing some right crap over the next few years as Scientists/governments backtrack and try to distance themselves form the stupidity of believing in man made global warming..

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

"As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_sunspots_affect_global_warming

"We suspect that sunspots do not affect global warming and there is no evidence that they do.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

Bafger I think it's best we agree to disagree. In time I will be proved right as scientists and governments back track. I hope you have the good grace to admit you were wrong.