[jetskidia]

This seems to have been kept quite


http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...ticle13834.htm

[KhalJimbo]

Originally Posted by jetskidia

This seems to have been kept quite


http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...ticle13834.htm

Quite interesting, almost gives a bit of truth to the Top Gear episode when they drove to the north pole when Jeremy Clarkson said he thinks quite unbelievable that they can just dissapear.

[robh2002]

As someone else here said extremely well, don't confuse global warming with weather!

And given clarkson doesn't understand how a differential on a car works, I'd not trust his opinion on anything technical - even more so on complex subjects!

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jimthelegend

Quite interesting, almost gives a bit of truth to the Top Gear episode when they drove to the north pole when Jeremy Clarkson said he thinks quite unbelievable that they can just dissapear.

Not interesting at all. If you look at the actual research cited instead of some dimwitted bloggers interpretation of it you will see that the graph of Arctic Ice is decreasing:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.area.jpg

(From the Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois website)

The blogger's chart is of Arctic and Antarctic ice; 20 years ago Antarctic ice was predicted to increase by now - something to do with more deep ocean currents surfacing as a by product of climate change.

So the (unreferenced) claims about Arctic ice decreasing seem to be true rather than disproved by a graph about something else.

But of course if he'd used the correct chart he would have to admit the climate appears to be changing.

And the Top Gear episode has been widely misquoted and misunderstood. They went to a spot where the magnetic North Pole used to be some time ago. The quote about "they said it couldn't be done" referred to driving through the ice fields part of the trip specifically, not the whole thing.

[KhalJimbo]

Originally Posted by andykn

And the Top Gear episode has been widely misquoted and misunderstood. They went to a spot where the magnetic North Pole used to be some time ago. The quote about "they said it couldn't be done" referred to driving through the ice fields part of the trip specifically, not the whole thing.

I was actually referring to the part when he said that there is so much ice around there and its so dam cold that he finds it hard to believe they can just dissapear off the map like everyone is saying. Not that they will or wont, but after seeing it with his own eyes he finds it hard to believe.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jimthelegend

I was actually referring to the part when he said that there is so much ice around there and its so dam cold that he finds it hard to believe they can just dissapear off the map like everyone is saying. Not that they will or wont, but after seeing it with his own eyes he finds it hard to believe.

He should go back in the summer.

[loz]

see a statement from Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois regarding this

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...a.ice.area.pdf

On January 1, 2008, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change and/or global warming.

[nicklone86]

Even if global warming isn't affecting the planet, I don't see green/renewable energy as a bad thing. I think it's a very logical step that will help preserve the earth for future generations without consuming non-renewable resources.

[loz]

Originally Posted by nicklone86

Even if global warming isn't affecting the planet, I don't see green/renewable energy as a bad thing. I think it's a very logical step that will help preserve the earth for future generations without consuming non-renewable resources.

Pity in some respect that the price of oil came down. People may scoff at climate change, but they soon change their habits when it hurts their wallets...

It just makes so much sense to use our resources more efficiently and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (for so many reasons, not just climate)

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

Global warmiming my backside!!! We have not had a constant summer since the 70's. If it was getting warmer than I wouldnt have to fly abroad to enjoy 2 weeks of sun.

It's not called "climate change" for nothing.

[johntheexpat]

Funnily enough, one of the really tough things about trying to persuade people that CC could be a problem if we don't address it now, is that CC isn't currently a noticeable effect. But if we increase CO2 levels at the current rate, then there is a danger that in a few decades time we may trip the climate into dramatic changes that seriously damage mankind's prospects.
So, every time the BBC or The Sun tell you about MMGW, you are free to yawn and say something rude.
But every time someone suggests that 2 generations down the line they may be in trouble, then perhaps you should sit up at take notice.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

Well we are talking 30 odd years in Earths 4 Billion odd years lifetime. Not even a drop in the ocean.

Nuts to the last 4 billion years, we are talking about the next two generations. If you don't give two hoots about what we may do to the planet in 30 years time fine, some here do.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

Well to be honest no I dont and only because IMO absolutely nix is going to change, no one is going to majorly suffer from diverse global warming and factor 1000 sun cream isnt going to be the number one seller in the year 2039.
If other folk want to worry about future non-events then please go ahead and good luck. If it does change in the next 2 generations then I will eat my snow covered hat with a dose of '1000 apologies' while being beaten naked with a flip flop.

So what do you base your view on? Have you an inside track that shows 30+ years of coherent research is utter tosh? If you can show that all the science behind MMGW is rubbish, please share it with the rest of us. When you do show the rest of the world that we have been blatantly conned for the last few decades, I can absolutely assure you you will amongst the richest, most celebrated people on the planet for a very long time. A Nobel prize is almost certain, every Government in the World will thank you, the Oil Companies will sign you up as a highly paid consultant and the world will be your oyster.
I think you you would do well to tell the rest of us what you know.




(ps if your response starts "Jeremy Clarkson said......." then I will undoubtedly fall off my chair laughing and send you the hospital bill!)

[loz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

So what do you base your view on? Have you an inside track that shows 30+ years of coherent research is utter tosh?

Well it wouldn't be the first time years of scientific research has turned out to be utter tosh would it?

OK, scientific research is well more scientific these days... you know what I mean...

But you only have to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions to understand how easily and deeply everyone can be sucked into believing something that turns out to be false.

I have no doubt we are undergoing climate change.
I have no doubt the world would be a better place if we stopped poluting it.
Similarly, I am all for recycling, a reduction of use of carbon based fuels, and we desparetely need to save the rainforest and other natural habitats.

So I am very much a green, eco caring person.

But you know what? I am still not convinced that if we did all those things, the climate would stop changing, or that we would even slow down the rate of change... Because that is what is does, and I just don't think all the factors involved are fully understood and reflected correctly in climate models.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by loz

Well it wouldn't be the first time years of scientific research has turned out to be utter tosh would it?

It would be the first time* that so much research, by so many scientists, across so many disciplines, spanning so many political views, which - when taken as a whole - presents such a coherent and solid body of evidence, was wrong.
Many individual elements may be flawed, some may even be wrong, but it is such a solid body of evidence that a few cracks in it are meaningless. Look at the whole rather than each individual brick. Consider it a wall. Even the most solid of walls are built with bricks that aren't perfect. You can take a wall and carve a huge hole in it for windows etc , but it is still a wall. Likewise with the science behind CC. Feel free to nit-pick away. You may even find some obscure little area where the science is wrong. But the whole lot being flawed?



* and possibly the last time - if the whole thing is a con, (then science will never recover, not in our lifetime and not for many generations)

[loz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

It would be the first time* that so much research, by so many scientists, across so many disciplines, spanning so many political views, which - when taken as a whole - presents such a coherent and solid body of evidence, was wrong.
Many individual elements may be flawed, some may even be wrong, but it is such a solid body of evidence that a few cracks in it are meaningless. Look at the whole rather than each individual brick. Consider it a wall. Even the most solid of walls are built with bricks that aren't perfect. You can take a wall and carve a huge hole in it for windows etc , but it is still a wall. Likewise with the science behind CC. Feel free to nit-pick away. You may even find some obscure little area where the science is wrong. But the whole lot being flawed?

Well as I say, I have no doubt the climate is changing. I am happy to accept that mankind is making a contribution to that.

But is there unequivical, beyond a doubt, concensus that if we reduced carbon emissions that climate change would stop? That is, the only cause of climate change, or the most significant factor in it, is man made, and if that man made contribution was all stopped tomorrow, the climate would stop changing shortly after?

[loz]

Originally Posted by andykn

It's not called "climate change" for nothing.

Doesn't stop everyone still calling it Global Warming though

global warming - Google News

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

Yeh, yesterday it was dry and sunny-ish, today its not. The climate changed. Take a look outside, I dont see any hot weather nor Palm trees, only snow, white skies and scarves. As I said, global warming my backside

The climate hasn't changed since yesterday, the weather has. Two different words, two different things.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

So, Jeremy Clarkson said.........

Earth has been around 4 billion odd years, humans 100,000 odd. Yet in the last 100 odd years we have been causing the Earth to warm up to such an extent with our CO2 output it could cause serious problems in 2 generations? I think not myself. Why? Because there is so much contradictory evidence

No, there isn't.

that until there is a total agreement then why jump on the bandwagon.
Back in the 70's didnt we start off with Global Cooling? What happened there?

We listened to the scientists, made a huge reduction worldwide in particulate pollution and so the cooling stopped and the underlying warming trend resumed.

Similar to what we did with Halons and the Ozone layer.

But we don't like what the scientits are saying we have to do this time so we choose not to believe them. We pick any one of many conflicting opposing theories, even if we don't understand properly what the scientists are saying.

[loz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

It would be the first time* that so much research, by so many scientists, across so many disciplines, spanning so many political views, which - when taken as a whole - presents such a coherent and solid body of evidence, was wrong.

What is the concensus of opinion on the Manhattan Declaration?
I see it is endorsed by several hundred scientists.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

So if it is global warming then the its caused by the folk above who listened to the scientists as you said the cooling stopped and the warm trend resumed

I take it that comment is tongue in cheek? (Or do you really think that the answer to CC is massive pollution?)

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by loz

What is the concensus of opinion on the Manhattan Declaration?
I see it is endorsed by several hundred scientists.

Several hundred vs tens of thousands.

If you search through this forum, a couple of years ago there was a much vaunted 'list of 100 scientists' who were pontificating on the same thing. In that case I ploughed through the list and one of the '100 scientists' whose opinion was so important was actually an American piano teacher at a small mid-western college. I'm sure this lot are much more with it though.

[daul_p]

Let me just throw this grenade into the argument

Might it not be a good idea to transition to renewable sources of energy and make concerted efforts to reduce our consumption of coal, oil and natural gas anyway?

Even if you don't believe that burning vast quantities of these resources by human beings is linked to Climate Change or global warming, the energy and food crisis that will arise if we don't curb our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels will be far from pleasant.

[loz]

Originally Posted by daul_p

Let me just throw this grenade into the argument

Might it not be a good idea to transition to renewable sources of energy and make concerted efforts to reduce our consumption of coal, oil and natural gas anyway?

Even if you don't believe that burning vast quantities of these resources by human beings is linked to Climate Change or global warming, the energy and food crisis that will arise if we don't curb our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels will be far from pleasant.

that was my point earlier. Regardless of climate change, most suggestions from the climate change camp are still worth adopting.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

So this isnt contradiction???


POINT 1 :-Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) report that over the past 50 years more than 13 000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost. Melting in the Antarctic Peninsula removes sea ice that held back the movement of glaciers. As a result, glaciers flow into the ocean up to 6 times faster than before [5]. West Antarctica is also affected where the warmer seawater appears to be eroding the ice from below.

POINT 2:-Global Warming fear mongers point to melting ice caps in the Antarctica as proof that the world is rapidly warming and soon islands in the Pacific will disappear under the waves. Two new studies of temperatures and ice cap movement in that same area indicate that is not the case. In fact, Antarctica is becoming colder. Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica. When the scientists noticed that “glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder." The study seems to confirm what 17,000 scientists have previously determined; there is no “global warming.”

All I see is an apparent contradiction in what you have written.

Those with a desparate emotional need to disbelieve the vast majority of the worlds' scientists on this one issue tend to read what they want to see. Unless you link to the research you are quoting, it's difficult to see where you are going wrong.

As for "Global Warming fear mongers", I don't know any and wouldn't listen to them even if I did. I listen to the research performed by scientists who are trained, qualified and experienced in climate (not weather) study.

Show me an apparent contradiction in research and I should be able to explain it.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by loz

What is the concensus of opinion on the Manhattan Declaration?
I see it is endorsed by several hundred scientists.

Unfortunately they have let their emotions undermine their comprehension skills.

The recommendation does not convincingly follow on from the declaration. Especially given that they acknowledge that climate change is happening, thus putting themselves in opposition to a number of IPCC opponents.

They don't address the rate of climate change at all, which is the central plank of the IPCC concern. Were climate changing at a natural rate no-one would notice or care.

In other words, they are refuting an argument that hasn't been made and then opposing measures taken to combat something they aren't actually talking about.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

I didnt write it, its from the net. And point 1 contadicts point 2. That was the idea.

But where on the net? Finding two apparently opposing viewpoints on the internet hardly proves climate change isn't happening!

Like I say, show me the research that you think contradicts, and I'll explain how it doesn't contradict the IPCC findings.

[loz]

Originally Posted by andykn

But where on the net? Finding two apparently opposing viewpoints on the internet hardly proves climate change isn't happening!

Like I say, show me the research that you think contradicts, and I'll explain how it doesn't contradict the IPCC findings.

if you google it, the 2nd quote comes from Liberty Matters News Service

and that is repeated across countless "climate change is all hype" type blogs/sites

[andykn]

Originally Posted by loz

if you google it, the 2nd quote comes from Liberty Matters News Service

and that is repeated across countless "climate change is all hype" type blogs/sites

Thanks. As the author hasn't quoted his "Global warming fear mongers" source its a bit difficult to see what he has misquoted so badly.

My understanding is that it was predicted in the 80s that deep ocean currents would cause the Antarctic to cool. Given that global temperatures are rising (even the Manhattan declaration seems to admit this), if the Antarctic is cooling the rest of the globe must be rising even more than the average.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Haizum74

Quite right but at the same side of the coin I havent seen your evidence either. And they do state that research has been carried out. I take it your after the hard evidence, graphs, computer models etc etc?

Its all here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I'm after the source of the research so I can explain how the posters have misunderstood what's going on.