Andy_Calafell_Sheffield

John Holmes; Thanks for giving a link to that temperature chart. However, why do you talk about on your document that GW posters would show; forget the last 10 years, if you look at the rise since 1850 then you will see the huge increasing trend in global temperatures. You know as well as I do that 1850 was at approximately the coldest point in the last 1000 years or so and even the IPCC has admitted that the warming before 1980 was simply natural variation. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, temperatures rose for 20 years, and have now stabilized and dropped slightly within the last 8 years? GW supporters are quick to 'conveniently forget', well from all of the debates I have seen, about what El Nino did to global temperatures in 1998, which was cause a sharp increase. However, they are quick to included La Nina as the major reason for our current slight cooling. Why? It amplies the temperature increases to make it more dramatic.

Dear Gray-Wolf ; As Chris Knight pointed out before, if you are passionate about something then do not let go of it. We all do appreciate your passion for the subject and the knowledge in which you present it to us. I for one am mostly of a confliction opinion to yours but I still appreciate your posts which can always give me something else to think about whilts trying to muddle out the scientific conclusion in my head. I think why people tend to clash (that may be the wrong word to use) with you is because your posts do tend to be very dramatic and tend to present the extreme doomsday scenario which would threaten all humanity. In reality it is probably not going to be the case and sometimes we may bite because of the numerous times we hear/see the unrealistic media hype on the news and it gets rather waring, especially to those who know the science behind the report is wrong. However, once more, if you are passionate about it then do not give up. Expect your posts to be challenged because people here want the truth and we do not seem to be getting it fairly from the media so when we see a certain doomsday scenario post, we will tend to jump and say 'hey this is wrong'. All the best and keep posting, you provide much to the forum !

I think what millennia was trying to say was; We really need less scientists who through around claims of GW related events when in fact it is not. Even looking at the brief history of the temperature anomalies from Madagascar we can clearly see it is not because of an increase in temperatures. There is another factor causing this, whatever it may be etc. Millennia was saying, why do scientists brandish such reports around with a pinch of salt even though the data suggests otherwise, which is one of the problems whihc causes such OTT hysteria surrounding AGW.

From which knowledge do you suggets that we would be in a downward spiral? From what you are saying, CO2 in the atmosphere is the major driver of our climate as it can completely reverse the effects of all the other natural variability? Am i wrong, please correct me? The Sun has been and always will be the major driver or our climate so why do you think otherwise? I am not saying you are wrong wiht your opinion, I am not saying you are right but I am saying this is the sort of mind-frame which is worrying everyone. The close-minded, AGW is definitely 100% happening because of CO2 and the face of the planet will change so much that it is going to leave it unrecognisable, and whatever other theories there are, they are definitley wrong and should be dismissed as rubbish.

Most definitely TWS. I too believe once we need time to really test the current hypothesis and it is far too early to say that the CO2 GW theory is correct but like anything, within time, we will see if it is correct or not. Once we are out of this slight steadying of the temperature, if indeed we do leave the phase in a short period of time, then we can assess the hypothesis and to what degree it will affect us. Me personally, I do not believe that CO2 emissions are to blame for the majority of the warming, I think most of it is due to natural variation and further years of research will uncover this. However, I may be completely and utterly wrong. PS. Please don't call me an 'AGW Deniar'. It is far too strong a word as to say I am denying something that is definitely happening, when it is still clearly open for debate.

During 1940 and 1980 when the global temperatures went through a clear cooling phase even though, according to the CO2 GW theory, the warming should have accelerated greatly during that period. Hence, something in the natural system must have easily overridden the the warming trend? So if the natural system easily overcame warming during that period, why is it greatly dismissed that this couldn't happen again?

And to what impacts are you referring to Gray-Wolf? I am not denying anything, like you are oh so keen to make out, I am just simply not buying this doomsday scenario where every slight change in our climate is blamed on global warming. Our climate doesn't stay steady, it never has done! it is always getting warmer or colder ... so every time the climate get's warmer or colder then any extreme weather should be blamed on global warming? Please enlighten me, as to which current impacts are you reffering to as a direct result of global warming?

I wouldn't particularly say it is a realistic sketch of tomorrow. A very extreme dommsday imagination you have. I cannot see in anyway that the Earth will turn into such a place which is in comparison to the desperation within a concentration camp. Very very very unrealistic in my book, but everybody is open to their opinion. In all honestly, it is more likely that the Earth will thrive from the conditions rather than evolve into a scenario as to what you described above.

Yes I have heard of the Sahel. What makes the Shael so susceptive to terrain change is that it is the transitional period between the Sahara Desert and the normal soils. I think sahel itself means border, but I stand to be corrected. So, if there is any slight temperature change then the Sahel will be susceptive to becoming more desert-like or more tropical-like. It is what you would expect from an area of land that borders the desert, our climate is never steady so a desert will rarely stay the same size. In our discussion, we were talking about the heart of the Amazon rainforest which would mean a whole are converting into a desert area, not an area of land on the borders of a desert.

Yes, but why speak about it like it is a probable outcome? You chose two risks to focus on so if it is highly unlikely, an uknown, then why chose it? It is highly unlikely to happen, that the Amazon rainforest turns into a desert like climate. It is a doomsday scenario that is thrown about with a pinch of salt.

Come on, is it really highly likely that a tropical, wet climate would change into a desert? Again, who is coming up with these doomsday-esque remarks, computer models working on inaccurate data and policy makers who work on the IPCC papers who are politicians who provide political, not scientific conclusions about climate change. Another example is the AGU, American Geophysical Union who issued this statement in January; The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. That is more of a political statement than scientific one. Atmosphere temperature changes, I thought it was well established that the lower levels of the atmosphere have not increased in temperature by much, which is a complete opposite of that the CO2 GW theory should suggest. Also, how can we use 150 years of meteorological data to suggest that something is changing at an unnatural rate? ... and, the world is never balanced, nor is nature's response. The world is dynamic and competitive...it's a non-stop free-for-all of change and adaptation. I look around many blogs related to global warming, such as ; www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog and many seem to only debate the social, economical political sides to the story. Carbon emission related policies to help ''save the world''. Where has the debate about the sciece gone? It is not decided, not even close and even within the pro-GW group of scientists, there still is no consensus as to how much the temperature will change at all, predictions can vary by 5 Degrees Celsius. People are not told all of the truths surrounding GW, they are told cherry picked datasets that help promote fear amongst them yet how often are they shown datasets which would lower the level of fear and ease the worries of global warming? Not too often in the mainstream media.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding Thundery wintry showers, I meant, what evidence do you make your assumption that currently, the average global temperatures are warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, without using the Dr.Mann hockey-stick graph. I will try and find you an article baout the IPCC admitting the warming before the mid 80's was not GW related. I'm just having a quick bite to eat now =]

These are the sort of photographs which are misleading to many. At the face of it, it looks a scary chart doesn't it, look how warm the Earth is etc. Yes, the temperatures are higher than in comparison to the 1940 to 1980 average. However, do they care to tell you that for 25-30 years of that period, the Earth was in a clear cooling trend when Global Cooling was a big scare. Furthermore, 1850 marked the end of 'The Little Ice Age', so the only real way for the temperatures to change is by increasing. It would have been pretty impossible for them to steady out or even decrease further.

Yes, and even the IPCC has even admitted that the temperature increase up until the 1980's is natural variation and nothing to do with man-made global warming. So, the warming you mention in the SH in the 70's and 80's, this is not GW related. Can you also tell me how you know the average global temperature is higher now? From what set of data?

There is data from tree rings on every continent which show evidence of the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. Why did the IPCC include it into their graphs for many years then abruptly change it? The IPCC is just chosing to ignore real observaitonal data in favour of computerized analytical techniques on an incomplete knowledge on the basis of the climate. Vikings farming in Greenland? Why would historical papera make that up? Are the IPCC saying that these are lies? Vinyards in Newcastle? The Thames frozen over, countless paintings of frozen landscapes from this period, all lies? Furthermore, the global warming now is only really localised to the Northern Hemisphere as the Southern Hemisphere's temperatures have hardly increased. Doesn't this mean GW now is just localized?

There was a big focus about Pacific islands, specifically the Maldives are in great danger in the near future of great flooding and perhaps being lost under the sea. However, there is now a report by a Sweedish scientisat, Nils-Axel Morner, who was the head of the Commission on Sea Level Changes and Costal Evolution upto 2003 and his studies showed that the sea levels around the Maldives were not rising, they had actually dropped since 1970. There is a video on youtube where he shows you the physicsl evidence supporting his theory, such as a tree stranded on a beach for 50 years, 10m from the sea and is still standing, never been hit by a wave. There is more but I cannot remember the exact specifics so I wouldn't want to make any more mistakes =] Perhaps he is completely wrong, but maybe he is correct and you cannot ignore the physical evidence in favour of computer model predicitions. Like the hockey-stick chart from Dr. Michael Mann does, ignores all the physical evidence and opts for a computer model telling us what the climate was like hundreds of years ago.

Yes, you are correct, that was a mistake by myself I meant half a century, my mistake. However, I am in a position to make a mistake, I am talking on a weather forum which affects nothing. Al Gore was speaking to the world and influencing the worlds ecnonomy and political policies, he is not in a position to make a mistake, because of the high profile of his ''documentary'', what he says has to be correct. Do you understand what I mean by that? It is the same from both parties, do not be biased and say, sceptics only accuse of lying. Many sceptics say that cerain data published isn't true. The same as GW activists say that research provided by the sceptics isn't true. So what is your point? I am accusing Al Gore of an exaggerative lie. Search the internet, Al Gore states that sea levels may rise by 20 feet withing the next century, the exact words Gore uses are ''in the near future'' Whereas, the IPCC report claims that the maximum sea-level rise is approximately 23 inch. Al Gore's statement is hinging on the thoery that, IF the Greenland shelf completely broke down then this may happen, even if this did, this would take thousands of years to occur, not within the next century and not the near future. Gore represents his statements as facts, when they clearly are not.

If you want a bigger picture of the history of the Earth's climate then obviously speaking, the higher number of years is always better as we only have a minscule idea of what the Earth's past climate has been like. Using 10 months of data to prove that the climate of Sheffield is cooling down is obviously too little, but to say that there is a sign of cooling is perhaps acceptable, maybe you think otherwise but I respect your opinion as you know more about climatology than I do. My argument was that there is a slight sign of cooling in Sheffield, looking at the data given. If teperatures generally were above average, generally for 10 months, wouldn't media be quick to say, there are signs that the Earth is going through a warming phasse. The PIT, i know that in terms of the climate, Sheffield's data is only a local variation and has no bearing on the overall picture put you posted it as if to say it were, so you are as worse culprit as me. I was only commenting on the data about Sheffield not about the rest of England's and the worlds climate. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding of what I put, I will try to be clearer next time. The global warming now is only really affecting the Northern Hemisphere. There are many many research papers that show that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the last 25 years and there has even been debates as to why it is called 'global warming' when the Southern Hemisphere is not warming or warming only very slightly. Surely if you say that the Medieval Warm Period only really affected the Northen Hemisphere then you are saying the same about the current situation? I know that there is both data to suggest man-made global warming is true and that there isn't. However, in either case, I think the temperature predicitons given by certain organistions and certainly by Al Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth' are exaggerated. Al Gore has tried to put the frighteners into people by lying about the facts. Yes, I said it again, LYING. It is true, some of what he says, even the IPCC doesn't even agree with it! Gore mentions sea level rises of 20 feet within half a decade or something, the IPCC predicts about a 23 inch rise. All I want is the media to be an unbiased, inpartial service that reperesent both theories in the same light, and not discriminate against the opinion that isn't considered to be true. It is not proved, but it is depicted in the media as if it is and there is no doubt that 'we' are to blame. Surely many of you, who may be climatologists, get annoyed with some of the obviousloy inaccurate reports and sayings you here in the media?

Best local pehnomena? There are researches looking at evidence from tree rings from multiple places from all continents which show the same thing. I can find you the name of the researchers who conducted this and you can look it up for yourself. If you say, tree data, hardly convincing, well neither is a computer based upon our inaccurate knowledge. If you are a scientist, you must surely know that Science is built upon all the time and is rarely understood fully within the first 100 years. Look at the media headlines, do you no think it is funny how headlines such as ''NASA- 2007 was Earth's second warmest year'' when it should be stated ''2007 was second warmest year in a cenury". Now, a headline like that, and that is real headline is most certainly misleading. So, are you telling me that the IPCC published version of the Earth's climatic history, Dr. Michael Mann's 'hockey-stick' graph is a 100% truthful depiction of the past climate. All the environmental signs and historical data should be ignored? And if you want to be fair, how come people who only want to be told the truth, whatever it may be, cannot speak out against the IPCC yet they accuse scintists against their ideologies of lying all the time. They are even fired from their jobs because of it.

The PIT - No signs of cooling? I have looked at the same data as you and I disagree. First of all, from 1955 to about 1970, there was a cooling trend in the Earth's global temperatures anyway so in terms of us looking at the temperature rises then we can largely discount them for this sort of research. Secondly, for the next 10-15 years you could also say that temperatures were recovering from that slight dip, so obviously are obviously lower than they are now. Then you can see that obviously the warmest period from these records is from about 1995 to 2005, which is what we should be really looking at to see the rate at which the Earth is warming. From looking at the data, generally, I'm not saying there aren't any exceptions, like take January, because obviously, there will always be slight variations, but generally for approximately the last 10 months, the average monthly temperatures are lower than the mean avergae for thouse months for the last 10-11 years. So, doesn't that show that in comparison to the LAST 10 years, not the whole period, we are in a slight cooling trend. If you don't believe me, work out the data for yourself ... =]

Yes, this decade may be the warmest on record. However, records begain from approximately the coldest period in the last 1000 years, the 'little ice age', so as a general trend you would expect an upwards trend. From looking at the history of the climate, temperatures are rarely steady and they fluctuate all of the time. What infuriates me is how the IPCC lie to try and make the temperature rise look so much more extreme than it is. We are told ''warmest the Earth has ever been ...'' FALSE! It was much warmer approximately 1000 years ago during the Medieveal warm period. We have historic and environmental data to prove it, so why are we continually told false information by the IPCC. Furthermore, we are supposod to believe that the fate of the Earth is doomed because we are told by a computer model that is based on our tiny 100 year knowledge of the climate! We lack vital information about the climatic processes which make a large difference. I mean come on, any computer model which can vary our warming from 0.5 Degress to 5 Degress obviously shows that there is high uncertanties in the model. Whatever happened to REAL observations, that gives us real indications of what is happeneing, not a computer running on incomplate processes and incaccurate knowledge.

Bio-fuels are good as a POTENTIAL replacement but their energy output is much lower than that of fossil fuels. I have a full report looking deeply into using bio-fuels as a fuel replacement to fossil fuels. It may interest some of the readers on this thread. Here is the link to it; http://vop-say.co.cc/?page_id=13 I would be grateful to know what you think about the report and if you know any more about this topic then please share it. =]

Hello everybody. After posting and watching this forum for months and months I know that many members of this forum have vast amounts of knowledge about global warming and climate change. I have a blog about the hot topics of our current society and I am currently focusing on global warming and climate change. I would appreciate it if you could spare your time and leave a comment demonstarting your knowledge about the area. The link for my blog is ; www.vop-say.co.cc I am sorry for posting a comment like this. Thankyou.

Hello everybody. After posting and watching this forum for months and months I know that many members share a lot of knowledge about global warming and climate change. I have a blog about the hot topics of our current society and I am currently focusing on global warming and climate change. I would appreciate it if you could spare your time and leave a comment demonstarting your knowledge about the area. The link for my blog is ; www.vop-say.co.cc I am sorry for posting a comment like this. Thankyou.

Merci Nick. J'espere qu'il y a des neiges a Sheffield, si il y a des neiges a Sheffield puis je serais tres content!