Climate Change & Global Warming

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Idont have a clue what the climate is going to do over the long term and niether do you or carlos. But i am sceptical of all theories and you are not, and that is the crux of our debate over all this time. All I know is it that it is changing and it is a natural phenomenon to change.

 

I am highlighting that the bbc is now linking greenhouse gas to increased intensity of ice ages.

 

What is the theory now??

is it warming or is it cooling ?? or is it what ever suits the current trend we happen to be experiencing?

[ArabiaTerra]

The study shows that increasing greenhouse gasses like CO2 lead to increases in temperature, and reductions lead to cooler temperatures.

 

Just as I have been saying all along.

 

We have increased CO2 by 40%, so what do you think is going to happen?

 

The BBC report does not say that increases in CO2 lead to increased intensity of ice ages, in fact it says quite the opposite:

 

It seems the tropical warming caused by high CO2 levels set off a chain of events resulting in additional greenhouse gases, including water vapour, being released to the atmosphere, thus causing further warming.

(my emphasis)

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Professor Herbert added that the "best global mechanism" to explain this link was the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Dr Carrie Lear, a palaeoclimate scientist from Cardiff University in the UK, agreed that carbon dioxide was the likely "culprit".

 

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm

 

It's their own, one model, small world, fixed view. It's got to the point that if they found the loch ness monster, they'd find a way to link it to CO2 levels.

 

There are other options you hear a lot less about...

 

Wikipedia[/url]"]Space weather is the concept of changing environmental conditions in near-Earth space. It is distinct from the concept of weather within a planetary atmosphere

 

You'd almost think they were quite sure about what it's distinct from.

Yet...

 

Space.com[/url]"]The field of space weather forecasting, is in its infancy. Forecasters can't obtain accuracy anywhere near that of Earth-weather prediction.

 

"You've got to realize I'm a forecaster, and I'm probably biased," said Kunches. Even so, he acknowledged, "space weather forecasting is probably something like 50 years behind the maturity level of terrestrial weather forecasting."

 

The authors note that more research is needed to understand the impacts of these high-speed streams on the planet. The study raises questions about how the streams might have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went through extended periods of low sunspot activity, such as a period known as the Maunder minimum that lasted from about 1645 to 1715.

 

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/solarminimum.jsp

 

If they continue to look away from the Sun for their answers, they're always going to find themselves chasing their own shadows.

[Carlos]

Idont have a clue what the climate is going to do over the long term and niether do you or carlos. But i am sceptical of all theories and you are not, and that is the crux of our debate over all this time. All I know is it that it is changing and it is a natural phenomenon to change

I'd agree it's best to start off sceptical of most things, and particularly how they might be reported.

 

There are different levels of uncertainty though. I don't know how much snow there will be next winter, or even if it will rain tomorrow, but I do know that you can design your house roof so that it's very unlikely to collapse under the weight of snow, and you can choose a size of pipe that is very likely to be able to take any amount of rain that falls on your roof.

[ArabiaTerra]

The Sunday Times apologises for lying about Amazon deforestation in the last IPCC report:

 

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an "unsubstantiated claim" that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for WWF by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as "green campaigners" with "little scientific expertise." The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

 

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

 

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

 

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

[ArabiaTerra]

The heat is on: Record temperatures being set all over the world this summer:

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/20/how-hot-is-jeff-masters-heat-waves-global-warming/

 

Globally, NOAA just reported that June is the fourth month in a row of record global temperatures, and the first half of 2010 is on a record pace. This is all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,†as a recent must-read NASA paper notes.

[Guest Anonymous]

nine countries out of how many report record temps. woop de bloody doo

you will notice that the places that these record temps are being recorded probably have reliable data going back as far as a few years maybe even as much as a decade.

As for the temp in iraq during the first gulf war temps reached the mid 50s regularly during the summers of 91 and 92 I should know because I was there sweating me bollox off.

 

yet more cherry picking and bovine waste from the global warming brigade.

 

coldest winter in shetland for many many years and now a pretty miserable summer to boot.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

The cold is also on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10749124

[ArabiaTerra]

Russia burns.

 

Bye-bye birdies.

[Skunnered]

Russia burns.

 

Bye-bye birdies.

 

If there's a shortage of sand-eels for the birds, it's most likely because of industrial fishing, rather than global warming around the Northern Isles.

[ArabiaTerra]

Global warming discovered.... in 1938.

 

Edit: And here's the NOAA Annual State of the Climate Report 2009.

 

From here.

[ArabiaTerra]

Russia burns.

 

Bye-bye birdies.

 

If there's a shortage of sand-eels for the birds, it's most likely because of industrial fishing, rather than global warming around the Northern Isles.

Or it could have something to do with this.

[Gibber]

Why don't I hear anything about the ozone layer any more on the news?

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Basically because we're not destroying it anymore. Since the bulk of the ozone destroying chemicals (CFC's) were phased out in the mid nineties, the ozone layer has stabilised and is even recovering albeit, slowly. One interesting side effect of the whole thing is that the hole in the ozone layer at the South pole has changed the weather circulation patterns down there resulting in an isolated cold air mass over the pole which is protecting it from the worst effects of the warming the rest of the planet is experiencing.

[Gibber]

Why didn't ozone depletion have the level of denial that climate change does? or perhaps it did.

 

Even my mother is doubting climate change and shes well into the whole "green thing".