Global Warming going a bit cold.

OffTheBackAdam

From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/#comments
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin (Won't work with the usual img tags)
From http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
And for those of us who got a bit worried reading The Daily Telegraph's report from the WWF about the loss of the north polar icecap. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/3226747/Climate-change-is-faster-and-more-extreme-than-feared.html0
AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png (Also won't work with img)
Above 2005 extent already and climbing nicely.
Now, why was that politician commiting us to reduce CO2 emmissions by 80%?

biondino

There's nowhere near enough in terms of resources to keep the world happy, so we have to change how we live. All of us. Including you.

COVEC

Now, why was that politician commiting us to reduce CO2 emmissions by 80%?


TAXATION

jerry3571

I love the people in the Uk who are worried about Taxation at the time of a Global tipping point. I think people really beleive that it was all Gordon Brown's idea to the world to invent this problem. Gordon fixes the thermometers around the world to conspire the rest of us that there is a problem of rising temperatures. Morer Taxes!! Ha! Ha! :twisted:
I went on holiday to Chamonix, France this summer (Eurostar and little car took us there, ok) and there is a huge glacier that comes down from Mont Blanc which ends at around 2000m. Just around 100 years ago they had to carve a tunnel on the valley floor to get through the Glacier. In 100 years it has risen up the mountain by 1000 metres. (Chamonix being at 1000m)
Conspiracy indeed!
Next reply maybe from someone who thinks that the earth was created 4000 years ago; nutters! :?
-Jerry

OffTheBackAdam

What Global tipping point is that?
Oh, and what's the problem btw?

boybiker

The only nutters are the people who bang on about global warming and utterly refuse to accept the fact that the Earths climate has always been unstable, has always gone through hot and cold cycles and always will whether we like it or not.
people thinking it terms of hundreds of years rather than the millions of years over which the climate changes is the basic problem.The whole global warming 'problem' is only a problem if you have this idea that the Earth exists only for the benefit of mankind.
Its basically down to the subject of another thread, that of poor science being taught allowing charlatans to run round telling everyone who will listen that its the end of the world.

jerry3571

Ok, the Global Tipping Point is where the planet starts to kick back and makes it's own contribution to Global Warming. There are a few cases- 1.Siberias has permafrost where the ice is present all year in a thick sheet. Underneath is Methane Gas, vast amounts which is nicely tucked away under the ice. Obviously, this Ice is now melting and getting to the point where breaches of this gas will escape to the atmosphere. Methane is 10 times worse than Co2 for Global Warming so not too good there.
2. Antarctica and the most northern reaches of the world have permenant ice sheets. The trouble is that this, too, is melting and underneath the ice is hard rock; no soil at all. At present, the sun shines upon these vast white frozen areas and the sun's rays mostly reflected back out to space. (the white colour of the ice reflect the suns rays) When the ice melts, as it seems to be doing now, the hard rock will be exposed to the sun's rays and the energy will be absorbed by the rock and dissipate as heat. This, over tens of thousands of miles, creates a vast amount of heat which contributes to our current problems.

Boybiker; the Earth has changed vastly over millions of years but the problem now is the rate of change. The Earth, only when sudden disasters happened, has changed at a rate which is so much slower than what we have today. When the rate of climate change happens naturally, natural selection occurs and things move along nicely. Global Warming works too fast for this adaption to occur so this is where the collapse of natural life begins.
I find it amazing that people will drive a car, fly in a plane, eat pills from the Doctor and use their Computer and be happy. The Science that goes into that is all fine and dandy and is 100% fine. As soon as 95% of Scientists agree that the Earth is heating up due to human activity then it's all tosh. Did you know the Scientists can't properly quantify what an Electron is but we have Nuclear Power Plants. Get that!!
-Jerry.

jerry3571

That went on a bit; sorry! :oops:
-Jerry

boybiker

Well the point is if mankind is doing stuff that causes climate change that is too fast then humans will be removed by natural selection,given that most species don''t hang around for long if they are not useful then it will sort itself out within the next couple of million years or so. Happy days.I am not going to worry about it as you and I will have long turned to dust.

jerry3571

My brother in law thinks the same. He gave donations to Greenpeace and he came to the opinion of that human life will come to a sticky end but life will go on. Just read yesterday that they found a bacteria in a deep underground mine that needs pretty much nothing to survive; no air, water or other life. So if thats the case then things will go on.One thing though; I can't believe in 10 million years from now that natural life would be as good lookng as me!
Ciao Jerry

biondino

jerry3571 wrote:

Boybiker; the Earth has changed vastly over millions of years but the problem now is the rate of change. The Earth, only when sudden disasters happened, has changed at a rate which is so much slower than what we have today. When the rate of climate change happens naturally, natural selection occurs and things move along nicely. Global Warming works too fast for this adaption to occur so this is where the collapse of natural life begins.

You're right about the ice sheets and permafrost but this bit is wrong and misleading. In stable environments, natural selection barely occurs because the populations can quite happily go on living as they are. In times of catastrophe, natural selection (whereby random mutations provide in individuals alternative or augmented characteristics which may better suit a new environment, and are therefore propagated through the survival and breeding of such endowed individuals) is a crucial mechanism for the survival or otherwise of affected species which either adapt or die.

Boybiker, what selfish and plain wrong b0llcks you're spouting. Someone told you something that sounds roughly plausible about climate change over millions of years so that means it's something we shouldn't worry about? "Millions of years" isn't our timetable. In the past the earth has been covered entirely in ice; in the past the sea level has been many metres higher than it is now. I wouldn't want to try to live in either, and if I am directly responsible for causing major and incredibly fast change (and I am - your "poor science" comment is laughable, since even if half the experts were completely wrong on climate change there'd still be way more evidence than we need that we're royally fcking things up).

Fundamentally, we and future generations have to live here, yet our direct actions today may make the world in 100 years time - our grandchildren will still be alive - an apocalyptic nightmare. Not caring about this makes you a grade A ****. The youth of today, Jesus.

boybiker

No sorry I don't give a toss mainly because most of the so called 'science' used by environmentalists is unprovable bullshit,secondly if mankiind is causing anything like the damage claimed then it is not something that I believe can be stopped and I refuse to feel guilty about and I am certainly not going to start wearing lentils and knitting my own tyres.

boybiker

I forgot to add, unfortunately for the environutters what nobody can say for sure because we simply don't have the ability to predict chaotic systems, is wether or not the Earth's climate is heating up,cooling down, or staying the same and if you look at the figures then you can make them fit pretty much exactly with the decline in the number of pirates, the so called 'science' is guess work at best and willful exaggeration at worst.

OffTheBackAdam

As I said, what tipping point?
Worst case observation based estimate we've a rise of 1.6 C of a century, best case 0.6 C, so a spread of about 1 C there. (This of course, assumes that an increase i temperaure is "bad", what's bad about a lengthening growing season and a reduction in the need to heat our homes and in the deaths of thousands due to hypothermia?)
IPCC computer models worst case 6C, best 1.5C a spread of 4.5C.
So we've computer models that have a spread of options nearly 5x that of the observational data.
Do we put our faith in computer models or observations?
More interesting data here.

Southern Oceans were warmer in 1880 than they have been anytime since.
Now, someone care to mention Global warming?
OK, so where's this figure of 95% of all scientists come from and what's their field of scientific practice?
These scientists disagree, http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
This article from NGU is of interest.
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

"The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU)."

How does this square with the CO2 models of climate change? Does it also mean that Polar Bears are a mere 4,000 year old species?
The ground beneath the AGW proponants is becoming increasingly unstable.

unclemalc

boybiker wrote:

Well the point is if mankind is doing stuff that causes climate change that is too fast then humans will be removed by natural selection,given that most species don''t hang around for long if they are not useful then it will sort itself out within the next couple of million years or so. Happy days.I am not going to worry about it as you and I will have long turned to dust.

Error bb: the rate of change in the Earth's climates is accelerating and the effects will be felt by you ( and my kids) more than me because of our age difference.
Watch out: there will soon be a weather warning near you... :shock:

COVEC

jerry3571 wrote:

I love the people in the Uk who are worried about Taxation at the time of a Global tipping point. I think people really beleive that it was all Gordon Brown's idea to the world to invent this problem. Gordon fixes the thermometers around the world to conspire the rest of us that there is a problem of rising temperatures. Morer Taxes!! Ha! Ha! :twisted:
I went on holiday to Chamonix, France this summer (Eurostar and little car took us there, ok) and there is a huge glacier that comes down from Mont Blanc which ends at around 2000m. Just around 100 years ago they had to carve a tunnel on the valley floor to get through the Glacier. In 100 years it has risen up the mountain by 1000 metres. (Chamonix being at 1000m)
Conspiracy indeed!
Next reply maybe from someone who thinks that the earth was created 4000 years ago; nutters! :?
-Jerry

You make many assumptions on my position with regards to this issue. I merely presented a statement of fact in my reply.

That is all.

cakewalk

boybiker wrote:

No sorry I don't give a toss mainly because most of the so called 'science' used by environmentalists is unprovable bullshit,secondly if mankiind is causing anything like the damage claimed then it is not something that I believe can be stopped and I refuse to feel guilty about and I am certainly not going to start wearing lentils and knitting my own tyres.

Interesting. So what's your educational background? Must be pretty impressive ...

No one is asking you to wear lentils. You might like to knit your own brain though.

cakewalk

boybiker wrote:

I forgot to add, unfortunately for the environutters what nobody can say for sure because we simply don't have the ability to predict chaotic systems, is wether or not the Earth's climate is heating up,cooling down, or staying the same and if you look at the figures then you can make them fit pretty much exactly with the decline in the number of pirates, the so called 'science' is guess work at best and willful exaggeration at worst.

Why is the science 'so called'?

Billios

The science isn't done by enviromentalists ....its done by scientists. Scientists with a proven, peer reviewed track record who have gone through years of training who publish in peer reviewed journals rather than put some rather ropey graphs on a webpage and say that everyone else was wrong. Fine, you can sit and stick your head in the sand and say its not humanities fault, why should I feel guilty..blah blah blah.....but what if...lets be crazy here.....say that the predictions are partially true and worldwide average temperatures do go up by a few degrees over the next 100 years well it may not cause that many problems here in nice western europe, but low lying countries will be in serious trouble....c.f. the flooding in Bangladesh.

As a scientist im a bit confused as to what an 'observation based estimate' means. Is it a simple extrapolation....well then THATS complete balls. Computer models USE observations as their initial conditions then propagate forward....they are not pie in the sky...i should know i write these simulations or something similar. And, where are the error bars on these estimates...theyve conveniently forgotten those...as far as i can see considering the error on the IPCC prediction, all those curves agree on one thing.....temperatures are going up.

While i applaud scientific discussion I wish people would think a bit more before posting random questionable science and state that they are fact.

Ive gone on a bit as well. Woops

jerry3571

I'm done here- Sorry for asuming Covaks attitude to Global Science and Taxation.
I can understand "boybiker". I think he thinks that we're done for so what the hell.
If you're interested in this stuff there's a BBC Radio 4 programme that called "Home Planet" which I like.
Cheers Jerry

Maybe have a butchers if you're still in doubt (even George Bush get this by now...)-


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... Cr1=change

Barrie_G

It's not so long ago that according to the scientists of the day (1980's) and their computer models etc. that they thought we were on the brink of the next ice age.

nwallace

I keep hearing that much of the CLimate Change proof has not been peer reviewed, and that which has, has been by scientists who have a political interest in the climate getting warmer.

The next Hitler will be a greenie, and if there is anything more likely to convince me it's a load of bollocks is a greenie. If it was presented rationally there is a chance i might actually bother to give it a chance.

OffTheBackAdam

Billios wrote:

While i applaud scientific discussion I wish people would think a bit more before posting random questionable science and state that they are fact.

Does that include the infamous "Hockey-Stick" graph?

Billios

Both sides are equally guilty of using questionable results, so yes that does include the hockey stick. Amazingly the entire idea of climate change does not rest upon one graph.

unclemalc

I have to harp on about this because I am involved in teaching it...

Beyond the polarised 'man-in-street' debate, the powers-that-be have accepted that anthropogenic activities over the past 150 years have resulted in changes to the Earth's climate, which in turn have altered the strength and intensity of weather systems around the globe.
Much of the prevarication that took place prior to acceptance of GW was simply due to the fact that to make any appreciable difference to the rate of change to the Climate would mean, at best, loss of profit to the big corporations ( and therefore affecting chances of re-election to government); at worst, loss of individual choice regarding lifestyle: nobody wants to be told that they cannot use their car or leaf blower do they?? :? As usual it is up to that 'man-in-the-street' to be given the individual responsibility to do something about it: "turn the thermostat down 1 degree" etc. In fact what it really needs is a world-wide dictatorship regarding the denial of freedom to waste energy.

China, for example, is hardly likely to willingly stop its rate of production if we continue to spend all our money on chinese-made products.
(Test yourself on Xmas day: apart from decently-made bikes and kit, how much of your Xmas shopping this year is NOT made in China...??) :shock: .
But it's not just China, or India, or the Phillippines. We are surrounded by colossal stupidity in terms of energy wasteage on a daily basis in our own towns.

The blade of the 'hockey- stick graph' is merely and easily-seen indicator of how one component that is responsible for GW has increased during the time of Man's industrial progress. It's backed up by plenty of individual pieces of work, for example the air testing at Mauna Loa since the end of the 1950s .
http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html

Natural cycles that affect global climate are many times slower in effect than what is happening at the moment. The rise in GW due to our energy-usage (good and bad) is increasing the chances that individual weather events will occur as extreme forms of themselves. Remember: it's the RATE of change to the overall Global Climate, and the increased INTENSITY of weather events that are the key, NOT whether there is a bit more or less rain overall this month in the UK, or whether there is an extra hurricane in the tropics this year - the latter sort of events don't tell you anything unless they are monitored over many, many years. By then it will be too late. It probably is already because of the greed and stupidity of those who prevaricated.
Remember also: those of you who insist on the often-biased 'peer-review' method: this is new science. We have nothing to compare the GW-related findings to, so its up to computer simulation to provide a clue as to what will happen, and those simulations are only as good as the data that goes in. If enough goes in to provide a consistent pattern of change, regardless of 'peer-reviewing' in journals, then it IS happening.
And it's very bad news.
We can renew this discussion in 10 years if you wish. I will be the one in the "I told you so" t-shirt.

My apologies for ranting on at considerable length here, as this is a bike forum after all and such essays are better elsewhere. But if you bring do it up... :evil:

OffTheBackAdam

The "Hockey-stick" graph is a discreditted theory, that's been demonstrated to be a artifact of the mathematics used to produce it.
The evidence for any serious alteration of weather patterns by our activities is weak, none of the computer models agree, none have predicted the reduction in mean global temperature that's occured over the past decade, a decade in which CO2 emmissions have soared, none have been able to reproduce the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age or the Holocene Climatic Optimum, The latter period (Note Climatic Optimum) was a degree or two warmer than global averages today, when there was extensive vegetation, animal and human life in areas now covered by the Sahara Desert, a desert which started its expansion when the climate cooled.
So, is an increase of temperature bad? More CO2 = More vigorous plant growth, warmer climate = increased growing season.
We're seeing record low temperatures across parts of the USA http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
There's no increase in hurricane numbers or intensities, ditto typhoons.
Arctic sea-ice extent is back to 2005 levels http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
There's also this little problem for the AGW Zealots.
"Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/#more-2769
Do the computer models factor is water vapour & cloud cover?
Global temperatures have undeniably increased since 1850 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
But does this correlate with man-made CO2 emissions?
There's also the issue of rises in atmosphric CO2 being some 4-800 years after rises in temperature.
There's also the issue of how we measure temperatures prior to the modern era & how accurate are they?
Another issue is how accurate are current measurements and how comparable to older ones?
Would you include data from the station shown below at Reno?

The CO2 concentration at the summit of Mauna Loa is good science, but again, does it show correlation with even summit temperatures?
The production of toys etc in China and elsewhere isn't that relevant, if they weren't made there, they'd be made elsewhere.

I'm completely in agreement that we shouldn't waste energy, cutting our reliance on fossil fuels is common sense, we need a big nuclear power station building project (There, nice zero CO2 production, reliable and quantifiable energy).
Now, with tis quote.
"so its up to computer simulation to provide a clue as to what will happen, and those simulations are only as good as the data that goes in."
You've hit the nail on the head.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I suggest that the IPCC models have a high garbage consumption.

don_don

How depressing

We'll lob sharpened chainrings at the 'naysayers' across the Old Kent Canal, err, Road.

Pity the poor millions in low-lying countries like Bangladesh who will suffer most, rather than us over-priviledged few in the UK.

unclemalc

OffTheBackAdam"] says:
The "Hockey-stick" graph is a discreditted theory, that's been demonstrated to be a artifact of the mathematics used to produce it.
:shock: you can draw the graph yourself using the rise in CO2 over the past 150 years to get the blade....
The evidence for any serious alteration of weather patterns by our activities is weak,
The alteration of weather patterns, as opposed to Climate Change', is gradual but consistant.
none of the computer models agree, none have predicted the reduction in mean global temperature that's occured over the past decade, a decade in which CO2 emmissions have soared,
This is a reflection of the newly found impact of cloud cover. The cloud cover over the globe has increased. This deflects energy from the sun (albedo effect, globally - NOT locally, where it has important local effects, such as the poles).
none have been able to reproduce the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age or the Holocene Climatic Optimum, The latter period (Note Climatic Optimum) was a degree or two warmer than global averages today, when there was extensive vegetation, animal and human life in areas now covered by the Sahara Desert, a desert which started its expansion when the climate cooled.
The increased temperatures then produced boosts in CO2 but the greater areas of vegitation sucked it up. Other global conditions then were dissimilar to today - you cannot retroactively apply what was happening then, with the planet in that particular state, to what is present today.
So, is an increase of temperature bad? More CO2 = More vigorous plant growth, warmer climate = increased growing season.
That is only useful if i) the plants affected can use the extended growing period/and or CO2 concentrations and ii) if the environment they are growing in can support the increased growth. Too much growth = soil stripping of nutrients = increased fertilisation = more N2O release (a far more potent GW gas than CO2).In addition, increased temps = increased pest longevity and spread (eg aphids all year round and/or aphids much farther north) so increased crop LOSSES.

We're seeing record low temperatures across parts of the USA http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
The cloud formation over the continental USA is increasing all the time die to the constant increase in domestic and international air traffic. See the work done after 9-11 when all flights in and over the USA were cancelled for the effect this had on temperatures over the US.
Ther is no increase in hurricane numbers or intensities, ditto typhoons.
Yes there is. 2007 saw so many hurricanes (or rather tropical storms) over the usual tracking routes that they ran out of names for them (A-Z) and had to use numbers...
There was also the first recorded tropical storm BELOW the equator. The reason 'Katrina' was so bad is that it didn't hit cooling water in the Gulf Of Mexico before it headed inland (this normally knocks out some of the energy) It went over unusually warm water which REFUELLED its power...

Arctic sea-ice extent is back to 2005 levels http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

The sea ice around the arctic waxes and wanes annually. The more inportant ice is held in the ice sheets over the landmases (Greenland being the main one). Thats going VERY fast. Besides, last year it was almost possible to cross the Arctic Ocean by sea - never before achieved. Check out satellite images of receding icesheets, 2000-2008
There's also this little problem for the AGW Zealots.
"Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/#more-2769
Water vapour increase is a result of increased sea surface temperatures (due to increased CO2...) which therefore give rise to increased evaporation. Increased energy exchange between sea and air masses is the start point for tropical storms/hurricanes. In addition, increased condensation = increased cloud cover, therefore causing increased reflectance (albedo) of the sun's energy back into space = lower temperatures under the clouds (Global Dimming anyone??).
Do the computer models factor is water vapour & cloud cover?
They do now, since it was realised the extent of the effect of the cloud cover.

Global temperatures have undeniably increased since 1850 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
But does this correlate with man-made CO2 emissions?
Yes - see the Hockey Stick....
There's also the issue of rises in atmosphric CO2 being some 4-800 years after rises in temperature.
See "The Hot Topic" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hot-Topic-Tackl ... 0747593957 and have a read...There's also the issue of how we measure temperatures prior to the modern era & how accurate are they?

Another issue is how accurate are current measurements and how comparable to older ones? They don't need to compare - this is NEW science.
Would you include data from the station shown below at Reno?

The CO2 concentration at the summit of Mauna Loa is good science, but again, does it show correlation with even summit temperatures?
Eh?? :?
The production of toys etc in China and elsewhere isn't that relevant, if they weren't made there, they'd be made elsewhere.
Only if we demand them. Stop buying the crap and they'd stop making it...
I'm completely in agreement that we shouldn't waste energy, cutting our reliance on fossil fuels is common sense, we need a big nuclear power station building project (There, nice zero CO2 production, reliable and quantifiable energy).
Hooray - agreed, without reservation.
Now, with tis quote.
"so its up to computer simulation to provide a clue as to what will happen, and those simulations are only as good as the data that goes in."
You've hit the nail on the head.
Garbage in, garbage out.I suggest that the IPCC models have a high garbage consumption.
MOST of the data collected in the past 10 yers or so has been aimed at monitoring CHANGES in existing systems (salinity, sea surface and sub-teperatures, humidity, evaproration rates ...) so that data is sound. The computer simulation techniques have grown with the subject and are constantly improving. IN GENERAL, the simulations agree in terms of trend forecasting. They don't agree in the details (exactly when the rainforests wil finally go/when the thermohaline conveyor will stop/when all the ice falls into the sea etc) because there are TOO many variables and the latter are on a GLOBAL scale. For instance it has recently been discovered that within the acceptance that sea levels are rising, the effect is not uniform around the globe, but is a 'swell' effect and so some places near to where the REASON for the rise is occurring (say, the eastern seaboard of the US and N Europe because of the Greenland melt) will suffer before areas far removed from there.
It is the inconsistancy of the results of sdimulation that gives the most ammo to the sceptics. I personally see their point but I also accept that the TREND in unequivocally bad news.
Phew!

OffTheBackAdam

http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/polar-defense-project-deletes-the-tough-questions/
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=05&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=05&sy=2008

Besides, last year it was almost possible to cross the Arctic Ocean by sea - never before achieved.

Well, bang goes that statement.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
"On this analysis, “global warming” is unlikely to be dangerous and extremely unlikely to be catastrophic."

"Yes - see the Hockey Stick.... "

If you're still teaching that, then you're giving your students grossly misleading information.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/
"The “hockey stick” representation of the temperature behavior of the past 1,000 years is broken, dead."

"But, the “hockey stick” was remarkable. And as such, it will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight."

Increased number & destructiveness of hurricanes?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away/
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday."
http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/decadal_hurricanes.png
An 18% decrease in recorded hurricanes striking North America since 1850.

from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7143/full/nature05834.html
"Comparison of the sediment record with palaeo-climate records indicates that this variability was probably modulated by atmospheric dynamics associated with variations in the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the strength of the West African monsoon, and suggests that sea surface temperatures as high as at present are not necessary to support intervals of frequent intense hurricanes"
Greenland & melting.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/03/nyt-maybe-greenland-isnt-melting-after-all
"the study, which is being published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science, throws into question the notion that abrupt ice losses in Greenland are nigh."
What about Antarctica?
Even more water locked in there.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8HzBjbAaOVcC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=antarctica+%2Bmelting&source=web&ots=mB2n9FB_lE&sig=jhBDkn4K8e5Ckxlkxn2KRdwHGH0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

These towers were built in the 1960s, 115ft high. Photo taken in 1980s, only 30ft showing.
All glaciers are melting?
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
No they aren't.
Antarctica is cooling.



More and more evidence that goes against the AGW Zealots' preachings.

Cumulonimbus

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Increased number & destructiveness of hurricanes?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away/
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday."
http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/decadal_hurricanes.png
An 18% decrease in recorded hurricanes striking North America since 1850.

from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7143/full/nature05834.html
"Comparison of the sediment record with palaeo-climate records indicates that this variability was probably modulated by atmospheric dynamics associated with variations in the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the strength of the West African monsoon, and suggests that sea surface temperatures as high as at present are not necessary to support intervals of frequent intense hurricanes"

Although the idea of there being a huge increase in hurricanes with global warming seems to come about in the media quite a lot i think that scientists arent that sure. The simple equation is that the higher the temperature the more energy there is for hurricanes and therefore the more hurricanes there are and the more violent they are. However, there are more variables than this - if air temperatures go up as well then this has an effect and if wind shear increases (which some models suggest) then developing hurricanes will be disturbed and not able to reach the ferocity they could achieve if there were light winds.

Recent sea temperatures in parts of the Carribean are quite a way above average but this has been put down to an ocean cycle in the area (dont know how true this is). However, i always thought that sea temperatures would lag atmospheric temperatures anyway?

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Greenland & melting.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/03/nyt-maybe-greenland-isnt-melting-after-all
"the study, which is being published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science, throws into question the notion that abrupt ice losses in Greenland are nigh."
What about Antarctica?
Even more water locked in there.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8HzBjbAaOVcC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=antarctica+%2Bmelting&source=web&ots=mB2n9FB_lE&sig=jhBDkn4K8e5Ckxlkxn2KRdwHGH0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

These towers were built in the 1960s, 115ft high. Photo taken in 1980s, only 30ft showing.

Not sure whereabouts that photo is taken but glaciers have accumulation zones and melting zones. Sometimes the melting happens at the bottom of the glacier so snow accumulating on a glacier isnt necessarily a big deal.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

All glaciers are melting?
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
No they aren't.

The thing is that glaciers have a variety of influences and their advance or retreat is not just dependent on temperature. If warming increases sea temperatures resulting in more snow then the glacier may grow, as your link shows. Then again the much quoted decline of the Kilimanjaro glacier has been put down to lower precip rather than being the result of global warming.

Cumulonimbus

The way i see it is that global warming/climate change covers quite a lot of environmental systems on the globe in some way. At its heart is a relatively simple equation. You increase the amount of greenhouse gasses, these trap more heat and the earth warms. However, the global weather and climate system is more complicated than this. If the covering of the land changes then this will affect the amount of heat that is reflected or absorbed by the earth. If cloud amounts change then this will affect the amount of heat that reaches the earth's surface and the amount that the earth is able to reflect into space.

A warmer atmosphere may have effects on ocean currents through things such as greater runoff from glaciers. This can then cause the climate to change in ways other than the obvious ones.

This means that the simple equation may be reliable or it may not. Scientists are trying to model how the earth's system will react to a warming. Theories are one thing but they have to be tested to be properly judged relaible. Ideally this would be done by comparing forecasts and data for a range of different scenarios, ie middle of ice age, rapidly cooling climate, rapidly warming climate. Unfortunately this is not available to modellers so they cant really know how good their forecasts are. However, since we need to know now if everything is going to end up going t*ts-up then we have to take into account what they say.

I dont know what to think about the whole extinction of species thing. As someone said earlier, bacteria have been found at the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet or some such place. Life does its best to exist. During the last few million years climate has often changed rapidly over short periods of time. The animals that could adapt survived. Those that couldnt died off. At the end of the day animals try to survive - if it gets 1 or 2 degrees warmer then they are not just going to give up and die. They will simply move. One of the problems occurs when a habitat becomes wiped out. All the animals that did live there then have to try and adapt to non-familiar habitats where they are likely to perish. This current high Arctic habitat could be changed during the late summer part of the year. However, polar bears do seem to be quite resilient to going without food for a while so i think that some of the stories in the media are alarmist.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ ... -in-depth/

One of the important things though is the human impact. Its all very well saying that climate changed 10,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, etc. However, current human civilisation has adapted to the current climate. If this changes then it will cause disturbance to civilisation. The same would be true if natural climate change happened but why should we make the chances of climate change more likely.

One effect on humans would be things like flooding of coastal areas where a lot of the population lives. Another thing would be the effect on harvests. A lot of the third world lives off the land - if their ability to do this is decreased then you could have mass migration. Who is going to take all these people? When people like the World Bank try to put a value on global warming i wonder how they come to their figures - if the whole of Bangladesh was wiped out but every westerner got 0.5% richer then what would be the effect on global GDP?

Its a big area and so i dont know see how anyone know everything about every cause and effect, especially as some of them are unknown anyway . Also, the media likes dramatic headlines so its no surprise that there is so much confusion