General Climate Change Discussion

[Solar Cycles]

And therein lies the issue. If you are correct then I'm left with egg on my face, if I am right you consign millions to an avoidable death.

I'd rather be in my position to tell you my truth.......

Not a case of egg on face GW, just that your post are extreme to say the least, with no evidence other than your own personal opinion to back up your extreme views! Your no different than all those who refuse to accept, that CO2 doesn't play a part in the warming we have endured, however small/large that is!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi S.C.!

Don't you mean that the latest PDO-ve phase (and it's attendant La-Nina's and a squished down El-Nino) has mitigated the upward movement of temps for 10 yrs??? The 'bounce back' of temps and their continued rise is gonna take some explaining (I don't buy 2015 as the time scale for the 'renewed warming' myself as everything seems to be 'ahead of times' so I'd go for this year and it's Nino to kick things back into their proper order).

How many times GW. La Nina hasn't dominated last 10 years, Perturbation cycle [La Nina prominance started feb 07] and -ve PDO a little longer. The stabilisation happened before these times by some margin. We had an El Nino for example in 06. So no these haven't squished down the warming that has happened anyway despite ever increasin CO2.

BFTP

[MR EXTREMES]

Hi S.C.!

Don't you mean that the latest PDO-ve phase (and it's attendant La-Nina's and a squished down El-Nino) has mitigated the upward movement of temps for 10 yrs??? The 'bounce back' of temps and their continued rise is gonna take some explaining (I don't buy 2015 as the time scale for the 'renewed warming' myself as everything seems to be 'ahead of times' so I'd go for this year and it's Nino to kick things back into their proper order).

but to be honest i would not bank on nino kicking it back to proper order,

i look one of the main global driver in the sky and say what can this achieve in our climate well alot it would seem.

over millions of years the sun increases and decreases its output at this moment in time its decreased this has had effect on past climate,

its also the lowest activity in 100years,

even science is struggling with this sudden lull,

and if it where to continue it will have a effect once again although perhapes with less of a impact but enough to notice with what we have been used to.

im also in the strong opion as activity on the sun stays in a minimum i feel el nino will be weaker as each minimum year goes by ofcoarse its just my thoughts and i could be wrong.

in turn this could well mean la nina events could be stronger,

add this to the arctic ice problem its very possible more ice could form around the arctic,

but of coarse i understand there are many factors that could decrease the arctic ice build up.

but im on the fence and still finding this ice melting issue hard to grasp although its clear it has happened with 2007 being a big hit with media and scientific hype,

which i feel alot of the general public are not convinced by.

its also worth noting that many people including myself are unsure and little informed on what the real effects of no summer ice,

apart from countries fighting over the resources.

i myself feel a climate shift is apon us wether la nina has given this impression im unsure but the scales are even,

with more and more information building on both sides im confused and i think climate is far to complex for anyone to pass judgment on the future of the ice although theories are good but they seem fairly inacurate.

for this reason im on the fence because to be honest it could tip either way and the gulf stream is another factor that ive herd very little about for sometime,

but has a big say in all this aswell.

[MR EXTREMES]

And therein lies the issue. If you are correct then I'm left with egg on my face, if I am right you consign millions to an avoidable death.

I'd rather be in my position to tell you my truth.......

must get this in perspective millions of deaths from what,

there is no evidence to support millions will die.

there is also no evidence to support ice will be gone either way this is just science and theories and both are prone to mistakes and misscalculation,

look at the ipcc calculations they are wrong but they they are right on warming.

gw i sometimes think your heart is set on this theory of ice melt and your very comiitted to this subject which is good,

but radical thinking is also good.

if all the ice in arctic where to melt then time will bring it back there will always be climate shifts thats how earth works it certain its not the end of life if it where to go.

the things i look at are gulf stream,volacanic activity which has increased a little recently,

add in the solar minima,

neg PDO amongst other things i really do feel the ice has a chance.

[❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️]

[MR EXTREMES]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: brillant

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...-dinosaurs.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...osaurs-all.html

I am being a bit self-indulgent here with these two links, but I am trying to show how science cannot get settled.

The first link is from 10th June 2009 with the proof that birds ARE NOT descended from dinosaurs.

The second link is from 18th June 2009 with the proof that birds ARE descended from dinosaurs.

There is anothe link which I'd like to post, but will only do so if I can get to it within editing time.

Edited June 22, 2009 by noggin

[noggin]

Ignore the above post of mine. I'm really getting my technical knickers in a knot with it.

Sorry...I'll go away now.......

[Thundery wintry showers]

I maintain that millions probably will die- if AGW doesn't cause it, fossil fuel reserve depletion and associated economic downturn (due to the markets playing laissez-faire instead of investing early in alternative energy for long-term gain) and population pressure in developing countries probably will. However I do think Gray-Wolf's view on AGW is at the extreme end of the range of possible scenarios. Not to be dismissed, but at the same time nothing like as certain as GW makes out.

[laserguy]

Quick,before it gets updated and disappears off the page. Any thoughts on the leading article entitled 'The Science Mandate of the IPCC',anyone?

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Please don't be dissuaded from taking a peek because of the source (tho' I know Dev will be)!

[Devonian]

Quick,before it gets updated and disappears off the page. Any thoughts on the leading article entitled 'The Science Mandate of the IPCC',anyone?

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Please don't be dissuaded from taking a peek because of the source (tho' I know Dev will be)!

He doesn't understand the GH effect.

[laserguy]

He doesn't understand the GH effect.

Would that be the Gore/Hansen effect?! Dev me old,please don't be offended but can you possibly find it within yourself to lighten up just a little? I know you take this whole thing very seriously (and I for one ain't knocking you tho' I vehemently disagree) but c'mon,even the Doom-Master himself GW can muster a frequent chuckle and I can't help but warm to him! I'm sure we'd get along much better if you didn't take umbrage so readily,and as a result maybe I'd not be so,er,brusque. No? Ah well,I'll get me coat again.

[Devonian]

Would that be the Gore/Hansen effect?! Dev me old,please don't be offended but can you possibly find it within yourself to lighten up just a little? I know you take this whole thing very seriously (and I for one ain't knocking you tho' I vehemently disagree) but c'mon,even the Doom-Master himself GW can muster a frequent chuckle and I can't help but warm to him! I'm sure we'd get along much better if you didn't take umbrage so readily,and as a result maybe I'd not be so,er,brusque. No? Ah well,I'll get me coat again.

It's a joke is it? I thought it was funny, but I didn't want to cause offence by

[Gray-Wolf]

Worth a watch eh?

[Solar Cycles]

Worth a watch eh?

Unfortunately/fortunately, I don't have any sound. What was said dare I ask!

[Gray-Wolf]

Same old ,same old. How info can be skewed (accidentally or to fit your assumptions). Much the same as we have going on in here quite a bit

Having been offended by the prog originally it's odd to see it still trundling on today! Still, made a few closet deniers reveal themselves didn't it?

[Solar Cycles]

Same old ,same old. How info can be skewed (accidentally or to fit your assumptions). Much the same as we have going on in here quite a bit :lol:

Having been offended by the prog originally it's odd to see it still trundling on today! Still, made a few closet deniers reveal themselves didn't it?

That programe was no better than Gore's masterpiece, it was flawed from start to finish!

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe both were pitched below us? You can't spend this long chewing the fat without becoming a 'mini expert' in your own chosen area and then to see what Joe Public is shown can be a little maddening (whichever side you bat for) in it's simplicity.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I remember watching that Global Warming Swindle program and thinking the usual, "there's plenty of good arguments out there to use in support of their position... so why spoil it by quoting a load of nonsense?" I remember seeing those graphs that stopped at 1980 and thinking exactly the same thing as the climatologists- why not continue forward to 2005? I had already guessed that answer to that one...

Climate "deniers" would be a good term to describe people behind arguments like used on that program- denying hard facts, as opposed to climate sceptics, who by definition are just sceptical.

I didn't see Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but it sounds like it was guilty of some exaggeration and of presenting only one side of the debate- though I'm not in a good position to pass judgement on whether it was as bad as the Global Warming Swindle.

It has to be remembered, though, that the refutation of most of the arguments in the Swindle program does not invalidate the position of climate scepticism- only the bad arguments that were used in support of it.

[Iceberg]

An image that I found interesting. (whilst looking for some arctic related.)

[VillagePlank]

An image that I found interesting. (whilst looking for some arctic related.)

Red is the risk of snow in ten years time? Red=high risk, Blue = low risk?

[Hiya]

An image that I found interesting. (whilst looking for some arctic related.)

Some context and scale would be nice. Bit inflammatory to post what appears to be a very onesided representation but could infact be something totally irrelevant.

I hope you have never complained about cherry picking.

[pottyprof]

I hope you have never complained about cherry picking.

Only if its on an IPCC data sheet!! :ph34r:

[noggin]

Is this a quiz? I recall that someone posted a chart or graph some time ago and we had to guess what it represented. Must say that I haven't a clue what this one represents......

[Iceberg]

quite right, I forgot to post the title etc of the picture, and just the picture.

It's the heat anomaly distribution from NASA for the whole of 2008, red warm, blue cold etc. Dark red = +2 or +3 anomaly thereabouts.

If I were still at work I would post the link, but I am home now and it's not in my favourites.

I fully admit it's GISS, but more importantly is the distribution of the anomalies.