UKC

I'm confused now. Does Global Warming exist or is there a political agenda to debunk it?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopp...

In reply to The Lemming:

I listened to this the other day, it gives quite a detailed answer to your question

youtube.com/watch?v=D3bH3_-dQVs&

In reply to The Lemming:

Climate change!

In reply to The Lemming:

Global warmings not the danger, rapid climate change is

With current trends the arctic icecap and grreenland glaciers will be gone soon. That dose of cold freshwater into the n Atlantic could weaken the gulf stream and n Atlantic currents meaning cold winters and wet summers for blighty and who knows what change in weather elsewhere. Crop failures and food price rises we are experiencing now could only be the start

In reply to Owen W-G:


But the link I used shows that world temps have not risen for 16 years.

In reply to The Lemming:

We mustn't let reality get in the way of "scientific" models, must we? Just because it is clear that the weather is not warmer now than it was years ago doesn't mean that "global warming" is not happening, especially as the numerous papers saying this have all been "peer reviewed", ie. confirmed by same thinking people

Doubtless this article will be debunked, especially given its origin, but the conclusion seems fairly reasonable:

"So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed..."

In reply to The Lemming:

16 years is neither here nor there in a climate time frame. For me the biggest worry is that there are 6bn people on the planet and that will be 8bn by 2020. If the predictions about G.W. are true, we are going to see famine, migration and pressure for resources that will make the last 60 years look like a golden period.

In reply to The Lemming:

The Daily Mail has a distinct political agenda when it comes to climate change, and should not be relied upon to present an accurate assessment. It's also simplistic to think that global average temperatures are going to follow a remorseless upward trend, year by year. However, it is the case that there a whole host of indicators of changes in climate around the world. One notable indicator this year was the record low level of ice extent in the Arctic summer. You can read more about this here:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20121002_MinimumPR.html

For a bigger picture, you might also like to look at this:
http://berkeleyearth.org/
This is an interesting project, because it's a project that was set up under the leadership of a physicist who was sceptical about man-made climate change, and who got project funding from the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers made their money through oil and gas and fund a number of right-wing groups and are definite climate change deniers.

The outcome of the BEST has been to confirm the results of pretty much every other climate research group, and Richard Muller, the lead scientist, has reversed his sceptical position and is now convinced about man-made climate change.

In reply to Owen W-G:

That's not quite right. The Arctic may be clear of summer ice over the next decades, but glaciers in Greenland will still be around for many hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They will be shrinking, but there's an awful lot of ice there.

In reply to The Lemming: The problem with your thinking is that you are focused on only one effect....... warming.

It just isn't so simple as the earth heating up in a linear fashion over short periods. There are numerous effects which mean that global temperatures are kept lower in the short term until a tipping point is reached.

If it's the short term you're interested in, discuss climate change, not warming.

In reply to tony: But thats what they said about the ice cap. What were the original predictions about its loss?

In reply to Phil1919:

Arctic ice and Greenland glaciers are two quite different environments. Arctic ice is all sea ice, and is subject to air and sea variations. Greenland glaciers are ice on top of land, and in some place the ice is up to 3000 metres thick. Conflating the fate of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet is not very helpful. I'm not aware of any research that suggest a loss of the whole of the Greenland ice sheet in less than 2000 years:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/gronlands-eismassen-konnten-k...

Of course, this may be an underestimate, but I still think it's wrong a) to equate time spans of Arctic sea ice and b) to suggest Greenland's ice will be gone 'soon'.

In reply to The Lemming:

And then you've got to take into account the extensive use of the classified geo-engineering program which I believe for the UK goes under the name of something like 'use of aerosols in the airspace act 2009'

In reply to tony:

Sorry, that should have been:
Of course, this may be an underestimate, but I still think it's wrong a) to equate time spans of Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets and b) to suggest Greenland's ice will be gone 'soon'.

The Mail has cherry-picked and misrepresented data to suit their political agenda. You can read the Met Office's response to the article here: https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-o...

In reply to The Lemming: the sun has scuppered it for now..