Global warming?

[TheMercenary]

"Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release"

Ain't that the truth....

[classicman]

I could use a little warming here right about now.

[TheMercenary]

Yea but if global worming wasn't happening you would 0.7 degrees colder right now, so be happy.

[ZenGum]

I had both doubts and hopes.

The doubts won.

They couldn't even accept a non-binding resolution, only "note" it.

The only consolation is that the cap-and-trade idea that was on the table was not the best way to address the problem, but now, we have basically nothing.

I know quite a few people here are not convinced that there is AGW/ACC, but (you may have noticed) I think it is highly likely. So I am very, very displeased, disappointed, and generally pissed off.

Copenhagen = FAIL.

[TheMercenary]

I had no doubt that it would fail. There was not a thing about that which was unlike any United Nations meeting.

I believe in some aspects of AGW/ACC. Now the picture is quite confusing. Cap and Trade is/was a joke that is/was bound to fail.

[classicman]

Zen - Most people don't doubt the warming, just the cause. However for many other reasons I would like to see mankind as a whole reduce carbon emissions and utilize "greener" power. Geothermal, Solar, nuclear and other alternative energies give hope to me that we can be independent in the future.

[ZenGum]

Well, there are some who argue about whether there is warming, but I put the A in AGW/ACC for Anthropogenic.

I'm happy to be fellow travellers on this one, though. Provided the bus runs on algal deisel, or sunflower seeds, or somesuch...

[xoxoxoBruce]

[classicman]

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

Link

Here we go again. This sounds eerily like what they were saying back in the '70's.

[SamIam]

Loved your source. The thing should be printed on yellow paper.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Link

Here we go again. This sounds eerily like what they were saying back in the '70's.

Back in the '70s when a few scientists got headlines claiming an ice age, when the consensus was for warming?

It does sound eerily similar.

[jinx]

Any comments on what the guy in Bruce's video has to say?

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not sure when I'll manage to watch an hour and a half video, but page one of a Google search isn't promising.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Back in the '70s when a few scientists got headlines claiming an ice age, when the consensus was for warming?

At the same time, a growing number were quietly noting the trends of global warming. Only trends then since we did not have the facts and numbers we have today.

But then many also hyped a myth about Saddam conspiring to attack the US when it was obvious that Saddam was working to restore his American ally status. Whose declarations got hyped? Those who lied about Saddam's intentions? Who got no respect because hype always trumps logic? Those who noted Saddam's interests were only in restoring his American ally status - they got ignored. No hype in the reality.

There is no doubt about mankind's creation of global warming. The numbers are overwhelming.

Also foolish is this need for lower carbon emmisions and 'green' energy. Classic curing the symptoms. The problem is this: put ten gallons of gasoline in the car. How many do any productive work? Over eight of every ten burned gallons does no productive work. Is completely wasted energy.

Those hyping the need for lower carbon emmission, et al are easily decieved by the Chevy Volt. It's not a solution. A product that actually increases energy consumption. Hyping a solution of symptoms rather than addressing the actual problem.

[tw]

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

Reality from research so disputed that. That same research was the smoking gun that changed the minds of the last remaining experts on the various environmental systems.

That highly respected expert that advocated and defended the Atlantic Oscillatory Cycle completely abandoned his 'holdout' belief once that ‘smoking gun’data arrived a few years ago. He was one of the few holdouts.

Fundamental is data from deep oceans. The trend is now obvious. Oceans have been absorbing heat in tremendous amounts for decades. Eventually, this warmed water will rise back to the surface (large currents that take many decades to cycle). So the question is not global cooling verses global warming. The question is how much faster will global warming occur once these deep ocean currents become warmer and return to the surface.

No responsible scientist believe that political agenda. That nonsense is why White House lawyers had to rewrite science papers. And why most of those 'global warming deniers' are educated by extremist political organization - not science. Curious – the deniers are also many who foolishly believed Saddam had WMDs when those numbers also suggested otherwise.

Reality - the numbers - global warming is a serious man made problem. We just do not know how serious the problem is. But denying it using Rush Limbaugh techniques is what, for example, we can even read in this thread.