[Closed] Global warming update!

More snow = more ice.

Do go on...

Man induced climate disruption is a fact.
I could understand if you want to discuss extent or scale of the problem, but even then you'd be sticking your head in the sand.
Lifer at post 3 has it right.

Hmmm....

So does this prove once and for all tbat all these 'green' taxes we've been forced to pay have been raised on the back of a fallacy?

So we'll be alright to use the infinite resources of fossil fuels then?

Global Warming aside, we're running out of oil. Sooner or later demand will more than exceed supply and by then it'll be far too lake to entrust "The Markets" to come up with a better solution.

I'm not in favour of the use of taxation to influence social policy at all, in fact I'd go so far as to say that I'd happily see whoever it was who came up with the idea publically flogged, but if we leave it to providence, we're royally screwed.

[quote=PJM1974 ]
Global Warming aside, we're running out of oil.
We've been running out of oil since man first started using it.

And unfortunately the carbon and other greenhouse gases present in the remaining oil/gas/coal will **** us over even more royally than we already are...but hey, don't let that worry you OP...

i love these threads!

rockape; sources and graphs please?

i especially like the graphs that start at 1997/98 - they're hilarious 🙂

It was from a [s]disingenuous[/s] standard article in the Mail on Sunday but he doesn't like talking about it.

+1 for post 3!

the story is from the daily mail, they got some data from the MET office and gave it to a climate sceptic Judith Curry...
http://www.****/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=judith+curry

The Daily Mail, right up there with Fox News, PressTV, Truther websites and Truther you tube vids as totally unreliable

I see this is still going, www.familyradio.com

I'm not in favour of the use of taxation to influence social policy at all, in fact I'd go so far as to say that I'd happily see whoever it was who came up with the idea publically flogged, but if we leave it to providence, we're royally screwed.

Very few other methods (none I've found but I'm sure someone will tell me there are) will change behaviour more than hitting people in the pocket. It isn't nice, but it works.

Of course, we're all jiggered now that car ownership in China and India is escalating to crazy levels ... all the good we do by recyling our Marmite jars and shopping bags will be anihilated!

What is wrong with reducing, and eventually eliminating, our dependency on fossil fuels

One way or another, what with them being a finite resource and all, that will happen.

The question is: how much are we going to **** it all up whilst pissing them up the wall before that time?

[b]Latest news just in:[/b]

It appears the Met Office 'quietly' readjusted its figures on Christmas eve regarding Global warming. Until then it had been predicting rises of at least 0.2 degrees per decade, with a succession of years exceeding even the record breaking high of 1998.

Its latest chart tells a very different story.......no more global warming until at least 2017.

You couldn't make it up! All the awful predictions they've been making for the past 20 years have come crashing down around their ears. Its almost as bad as their prediction for a barbecue summer last year!!

Rockape63 - Member

Its latest chart tells a very different story.......no more global warming until at least 2017.

all of 4 years away.

meanwhile:

[url= http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ ]cool graph...[/url]

Oooh nice graph! All of 4 years away, but at this rate it will cooling down again! 😯

Climate model forecast is revised

"the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C"

"it still stands by its longer-term projections that forecast significant warming over the course of this century"

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224[/url]

So this finally got raised! I saw the Met Office climb down yesterday. Well hidden and hardly covered - and unsurprisingly ignored by the BBC TV news (but was on the web). Good to see that the Met acknowledged that "this is an extremely challenging area of research" and that, "our knowledge is continually increasing and it is therefore not surprising that our models and predictive skill will continue to improve". That will be a relief - not in the rainfall sense though (sorry bad, geographers pun!).

Also good to know that global warming (sic) has stalled/slowed down since 2000 with last year being below the average of the past decade but I would suggest that taking their predictions that there will be no global warming for a period of 20 years probably need taking with a large pinch of salt.

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office...pointed out that warming has slowed down since 2000, in comparison to the rapid warming of the world since the 1970s.
“Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s,” he said. “This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began.... {no S*** sherlock]... “We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has [inconveniently?] slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate.”

But wait for it...

Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that [b]the general pattern of warming was not in doubt.[/b]

With their record, its good to know they can still be so categorical (and as equally likely to be right or wrong)

Re the complaints about sources - it would indeed be so helpful if the Met Office made this a little easier to find on their website. It would be too cynical to suggest any motive though!

So if it warms up more crocodiles will be able to breed more effectively?

Seriously, who cares about global warming anyway, we love being on a self propelled journey to destroy the well being of the planet. It's the human way. All this doing the right thing on pollution, energy saving, protecting the only planet we have, it's got to be better to mess on our home. Still I have no kids to leave planet to so no need to care.
As far as oil goes on the finite front, i'd be as concerned about other things also.

Other important questions are: Will this thread go one ages and will someone be booted off for being to clever (the tj effect).

molgrips - Member
Lolz at the pathetic challenge

Warmer air - more water vapour in it = more snow = more ice over time. Central Antarctica could get a lot warmer and still be plenty cold enough for snow - obviously.

Try harder.

Source? Because your post is somewhat at odds with this article from the register
[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/ ]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/[/url]

I couldn't read the full publication as it's behind a paywall, but the abstract doesn't mention snow.

[img] [/img]

That's exactly how I feel. I'm no scientist so not qualified to comment about global warming but the list is all good shit which we should do anyway. A bit of global housekeeping if you like.

But that's not the point Wrecker. I fully agree with you, but I like many others feel aggrieved that we have had this shoved down our necks, had our holiday flights taxed to the hilt (and beyond) in addition to having to listen to barmy scientists witter on relentlessly.........only to find out its all BOLLOX!

And......don't get me started on carbon footprints!! 😳

Lewis Page of the Register has constantly pressed an AGW-sceptical viewpoint. His opinion alone proves or disproves nothing.

The MetOffice is releasing experimental data based on its open analysis in an open manner. They don't claim their data is everything, nor does a small readjustment in their data mean that a whole branch of science is "BOLLOCKS"

Are you people completely thick or just pretending?

There's no such thing as a climb-down ffs.

The way scientists work is that they keep trying to figure stuff out and they learn more in the process. So when they say 'we think this might happen' they're not making a stand they are telling you what they currently think.

Then, when they learn more, they might change their mind. So it's not a climb down, it's just keeping you informed of current thinking. They can't help it if you're a bonehead.

As George Orwell said

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. … Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

Oh really....in 2007 its Hadley Centre for climate change research produced a briefing document for the Government claiming its state of the art computer models left no doubt: man made global warning was a very real threat which needed to be urgently addressed by the policy makers.

What if it is all BOLLOCKS? What if caron dioxide isn't responsible for global temp changes? what if all the job killing, environmentally destructive measures we've taken have been a spectacular waste of money?

[i]Oh really....in 2007 its Hadley Centre for climate change research produced a briefing document for the Government claiming its state of the art computer models left no doubt: man made global warning was a very real threat which needed to be urgently addressed by the policy makers.[/i]

and why did the Christmas Eve data contradict that? It's predicting a SLOWING OF THE RATE of warming, not a lack of warming, not a reversal. The decade preceding this one was the warmest on record. 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record by some measures.

The whole thing is immensely complex to model, and there are lots of datasets, and they won't all match up, and using a single one as the basis of ANYTHING is tabloid dum****ery, but a shallowing out of a rate of growth in one set of data doesn't disprove warming, it just indicates an increased amount of uncertainty in where things are predicted to go from here.

[i]The whole thing is immensely complex to model[/i]

Clearly!

To the OP: please explain:
1. How releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere doesn't cause the atmosphere to warm. Please make a reference to the cretaceous period and Venus.
2. Please provide a breakdown of the "green taxes" you pay and how they are spent.

Another patient debunking by the Met Office: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/addressing-the-daily-mail-and-james-delingpoles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/

the mind boggles as to why anyone would want to debate this, the point is shirley, who's willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

good thing there was never an ice age.

Brainflex, there was an ice age you know! I prefer ice age 2 myself but will watch any of them at a push

I was enjoying Ice Age 3, then there was a power cut and I missed the end.

who's willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

Yes, especially all those who are gambling that AGW is the most important issue we face.

1. How releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere doesn't cause the atmosphere to warm.

You go first with some proof that even the smaller than "expected" warming we're seeing is directly attributable to atmospheric CO2.

What if it is all BOLLOCKS?[b] What if caron dioxide isn't responsible for global temp changes?[/b] what if all the job killing, environmentally destructive measures we've taken have been a spectacular waste of money?

Well we will just have made a sustainable future for no point- as covered more than one with the picture. No idea what you are going to call environmentally destructive measures but it will be amusing to see your list so indulge me.

As for carbon dioxide there is no debate about whether it causes warming and whether it is a greenhouse gas - if there is a question and its a big IF as no mechanism has been given yet - it is how does the earth reduce this effect- what is the feedback method - With reference to the laws of thermodynamics please.
No offence but I dont expect you to even understand what is being asked

I saw the Met Office climb down yesterday

You saw something different from me I saw a change in prediction rate- has GO done a climb down yet when he changed his predictions?. I also find it most amusing to read an economist berating an area of science for its inability to do accurate long term predictions - Oh the irony

Ps the climb down was described thus - sourced not from the daily mail

The Met Office has been responding to claims that warming has stopped all week, explaining that the forecast in question only relates to short term fluctuations in the climate - and certainly doesn't mean warming has stopped.

Your better than this THM follow the data - its a reduced rate of warming due to better measurement/models it is in no sense a climb down by anyone standards. Poor, see me after class 😕

The new model indicates that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 degrees Celsius above the average for the period 1971 to 2000 by 2017, rather than 0.54 degrees, as an earlier forecast had suggested. For more on the new forecast, read our blog here.

Smith explains that fluctuations in global temperature in the next few years are expected due to natural variability, but that [b]they have no sustained impact on long term warming[/b]. What's more, Smith explains that the slightly lower prediction in the new forecast is still within the bounds of the previous prediction. He says:

"The latest experimental decadal prediction provided by the Met Office issued in December 2012 suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than prediction from the previous prediction issued in December 2011, but still near record levels. While they are different, the range of temperatures in the 2012 prediction overlap with the range from the previous prediction provided in December 2011."

Its bobbins as using from Delingpole - now if you want to get science from an English lit graduate with an agenda then dont let me stop you. Personally I will listen to the experts in that area and what they say but you can have your polemicist, untrained journalist
from 2:40 ish for context and 3:50 to o see how good he does with a scientist

Well we will just have made a sustainable future for no point- as covered more than one with the picture.

Unless of course we'd be better spending all the money which is being spent on futile attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 on something else which might be more beneficial to the environment. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for reducing consumption and all sorts of other things which are undeniably good for the environment and have no obvious downside. Just sceptical about all the emphasis being simply on reducing CO2 emissions, when there is no hard evidence at all that any of the large measures which are being taken to do that, and on which lots of money is being spent are likely to improve things in any significant way. Meanwhile all sorts of other things which could improve things a lot for much less money are being ignored.

One good example of the way such thinking leads is vast amounts being spent on onshore wind farms, the effectiveness of which even at achieving their claimed aims is dubious. Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes, which would actually reduce consumption by a far larger amount than the contribution wind power makes to our energy supply. I'm fairly sure I'm in accordance with most right thinking environmentalists on that issue (it was certainly a point TJ also liked to make 😉 ), however they do seem to miss the point that an overemphasis on the "bogey man in the woods" is exactly what leads to that situation.

What if polluting the planet has stopped us entering a new ice age?

Good or bad?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/January2012/10012012-ice-age-delayed

Yay to pollution! Now our children won't starve in a frozen wasteland!

Now we've just got to learn how much we need to pollute to keep the earth at a stable temperature! Practice our terraforming skillzz before we go to mars.

lots of money is being spent are likely to improve things in any significant way. Meanwhile all sorts of other things which could improve things a lot for much less money are being ignored.

Its a debate worth having

I dont think the endless debate with non scientists about AGW is in anyway beneficial. If they were after understanding then fine but its just about ranting in a way that shows they dont actually understand the subject.

FWIW I noted that 9/11 attracts left wing conspiracist and global warming seems to be the preserve of right wing conspiracist [ probably feel the car industry and the oil companies are being bullied by solar panel makers or something to stealth green tax us ] - see lawsons group for example- no idea what any of that means but i did notice it.

I fully agree with you, but I like many others feel aggrieved that we have had this shoved down our necks, had our holiday flights taxed to the hilt (and beyond) in addition to having to listen to barmy scientists witter on relentlessly.........only to find out its all BOLLOX!

And......don't get me started on carbon footprints!!

Poor ickle youse. Did you hav to pay too much taxes? Oh noes!

How about these guys?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/bangladesh/flooding-interactive

One good example of the way such thinking leads is vast amounts being spent on onshore wind farms, the effectiveness of which even at achieving their claimed aims is dubious. Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes, which would actually reduce consumption by a far larger amount than the contribution wind power makes to our energy supply. I'm fairly sure I'm in accordance with most right thinking environmentalists on that issue (it was certainly a point TJ also liked to make ), however they do seem to miss the point that an overemphasis on the "bogey man in the woods" is exactly what leads to that situation.

Yeah, this is what happens to good ideas when you let politicians and their mates in XYZ industry near them. It would of course be better to use less in the first place

environmentally destructive measures

Isn't this pretty much anything and everything humans do, to varying degrees.

Knocking up 50 humongous wind turbines has it's costs. As does buying a loaf of bread or a Google search.

It would of course be better to use less in the first place

I think you are not discriminating between impact and destructive.

For example taking some wood from the forest floor to make a fire will have an impact, Burning the entire wood down will be destructive