yeah yeah yeah

 

i know all that, i meant in england. as far as the u.k goes we're as sound as a pound

 

 

Thought in the worst scenario parts of the South/SE would be under water?

....but are we heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph and if we are can we do anything about it anyway?... the jurys still out as far as im concerned. whilst i accept the world MIGHT be warming up (and it all depends upon which data you chose to believe, that article throws great doubt as to the accuracy of the 'official' data), whether we are causing it or not is far from being proven.

We can do the equivalent of slamming the brakes on. To continue the metaphor that might make the difference between still hitting the wall but at 20 mph and surviving rather than hitting it at 100 mph and facing certain death.

We can do the equivalent of slamming the brakes on. To continue the metaphor that might make the difference between still hitting the wall but at 20 mph and surviving rather than hitting it at 100 mph and facing certain death.

 

i dont call 'drive 5 miles less' and 'switch off standby' slamming on the brakes.... IF we ARE totally responsible for global warming we HAVE to take much more drastic measures then that. our city council are already considering reducing/turning off street lights in the middle of the night... and why not? thats how it used to be when i was a kid.

trouble is, its easy for us in the developed world to make a few cuts here and there, its the developing world that needs industry and consumer products just to catch us up and join in that will suffer the most. 'we' will be telling them 'no you cant develop because we have used up the earths quota of pollution'.

 

ill blow my own trumpoet here....lol... i posted this just hours BEFORE this actually happened!!! :) and the developing countries walked out...lol

... anyone else see the irony, we are in the grips of the biggest freeze for 18 years and the biggest december freeze for 28 years, and washington dc has had the most severe blizzard ever...

 

so much for 'warming'... maybe we ARE turning the corner, by natural means of course... i just wonder what all the hyperbolic experts, politicians and activists make of it all IF the planet HAS peaked and will now cool down again..

 

they will just shut up and slip into an embarrassed exile.. until theres a new reason to blame man for something... <_<

... anyone else see the irony, we are in the grips of the biggest freeze for 18 years and the biggest december freeze for 28 years, and washington dc has had the most severe blizzard ever...

 

so much for 'warming'... maybe we ARE turning the corner, by natural means of course... i just wonder what all the hyperbolic experts, politicians and activists make of it all IF the planet HAS peaked and will now cool down again..

 

they will just shut up and slip into an embarrassed exile.. until theres a new reason to blame man for something... <_<

Actually, the Met Office deals with this in a pamphlet they handed out with the Independent a few weeks back...a quick search yielded this answer (which isn't the exact one they gave, but I think they touched on it...)

 

The World Meteorological Organization says cold weather does not mean that global warming has abated. WMO says people should not confuse weather with climate.

 

People in Europe are shivering, while people in North Asia and parts of Australia are sweltering. Scientists say these weather extremes are to be expected and neither phenomenon can be used as a case for or against global warming.

 

Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud, says people should not confuse local weather variability with climate change.

 

Just because people in Geneva and elsewhere in Europe are shivering does not mean global warming has stopped. He says the trend toward global warming is still there.

 

"I think we have to be careful not to interpret any single event as a proof of either warming or the fact that warming has stopped," he said. "When scientists look at the global warming, they take into account many, many old possible available evidence. So, we cannot explain any single phenomenon by one single cause."

 

Jarraud says last year was cooler than the year before, but 2008 still ranks as the 10th warmest year on record.

 

He says average global surface temperatures have climbed significantly since 1850, when historical weather statistics were first recorded.

 

"Global warming will mean that heat waves like the one we got in Western Europe in 2003 will become more frequent. But, it does not mean that the 2003 heat wave was produced by global warming ... Last year, we know that part of the relative cooling was due to the La Nina phenomena, which was moderate to strong in the first part of 2008. Then in the second part of 2008, it became closer to what we call neutral condition. Now, it is a little bit unclear what will happen this year," he said.

 

Jarraud says every year, somewhere in the world weather records will be broken. He says every year, exceptional weather events will take place somewhere in the world. He says people have to look at the global picture to assess whether climate change is taking place.

 

Scientists say human activity contributes to climate change, but they do not agree on the pace at which climate change may be unfolding.

Quite right LaTyrouxn. People need to distinguish between a single event and a general trend. Saying that the weather we're having at the moment proves that global warming isn't happening is like saying that the existence of left-handed people disproves the generalisation that most people are right-handed.

"I think we have to be careful not to interpret any single event as a proof of either warming or the fact that warming has stopped," he said

 

exactly! ..... niether cooling NOR WARMING...

Quite right LaTyrouxn. People need to distinguish between a single event and a general trend. Saying that the weather we're having at the moment proves that global warming isn't happening is like saying that the existence of left-handed people disproves the generalisation that most people are right-handed.

 

single event?...you forget februarys snow, then the most snow we had had for 13 years... plus our summers havnt been 'hot' for several years... the 'experts' were pointing to the fact that we had not had snowy winters recently as proof of warming.... now those same experts are saying its part of warming... nah...im more sceptical then ever and that hockey stick graph, the one thats the bible of warming theorists has been proven to be inaccurate because the data needs to be interpreted in a certain way to make it work.

 

the vikings settled and farmed greenland, we still cant do that now... past climate was WARMER...fact.

single event?...you forget februarys snow, then the most snow we had had for 13 years... plus our summers havnt been 'hot' for several years... the 'experts' were pointing to the fact that we had not had snowy winters recently as proof of warming.... now those same experts are saying its part of warming... nah...im more sceptical then ever and that hockey stick graph, the one thats the bible of warming theorists has been proven to be inaccurate because the data needs to be interpreted in a certain way to make it work.

 

the vikings settled and farmed greenland, we still cant do that now... past climate was WARMER...fact.

When did you accept that smoking is a major cause of lung cancer? And that HIV and Aids were linked? There were plenty of people (even some scientists) claiming otherwise for years before the last people finally accepted the inevitable. The number of deaths caused by those sceptics will be dwarfed by the number of deaths caused if the climate change sceptics are wrong.

When did you accept that smoking is a major cause of lung cancer? And that HIV and Aids were linked? There were plenty of people (even some scientists) claiming otherwise for years before the last people finally accepted the inevitable. The number of deaths caused by those sceptics will be dwarfed by the number of deaths caused if the climate change sceptics are wrong.

 

no comparison... it was bloody obvious that inhaleing that $h!t was no good for you, and that was something you can do something about...

 

there IS considerable doubt over a) whether the climate IS warming, the data is being manipulated, and B) that its warming directly because of man... needless to say that even if it is, its too bloody late!

 

i dont swallow what 'experts' tell me per se, i need to see evidence thats pure and unambiguous, like ive said.... the experts told us there will be no fossil fuels or oil by y2k, they promised us that nuclear power would solve all our energy problems and that pesticides would provide food for all, and they made a claim backed up by statistics that we were on the brink of another ice age and the world was doomed because of the hole in the ozone layer...

 

'experts' with their data have been proven to be utterly WRONG in many cases, so forgive my scepticism now .... ive swallowed their rhetoric in the past and got embarrassed when they were proven wrong...

... anyone else see the irony, we are in the grips of the biggest freeze for 18 years and the biggest december freeze for 28 years, and washington dc has had the most severe blizzard ever...

 

so much for 'warming'... maybe we ARE turning the corner, by natural means of course... i just wonder what all the hyperbolic experts, politicians and activists make of it all IF the planet HAS peaked and will now cool down again..

 

they will just shut up and slip into an embarrassed exile.. until theres a new reason to blame man for something... <_<

 

Anyone else see the irony of this post. One of the likely affects of global warming is that the North Atlantic air stream/current will weaken so causing less breeze to reach Northern Europe. The net result = winters gets colder and wetter; summers get drier and hotter with more sporadic tropical rainfall at a higher velocity than previously.

 

One other point, which part of the world has the greatest deviation between daytime & nightime temperatures? Answer the Sahara Desert where the deviation is an average 25.5c (38.5c average day time; 13.0c average night time).

Anyone else see the irony of this post. One of the likely affects of global warming is that the North Atlantic air stream/current will weaken so causing less breeze to reach Northern Europe. The net result = winters gets colder and wetter; summers get drier and hotter with more sporadic tropical rainfall at a higher velocity than previously.

 

One other point, which part of the world has the greatest deviation between daytime & nightime temperatures? Answer the Sahara Desert where the deviation is an average 25.5c (38.5c average day time; 13.0c average night time).

 

you confuse the jet stream (air) with the gulf stream (water)... its the gulf stream that keeps us warm in winter... however thats an old theory thats been superceeded. the experts now think that IF the ice cap melts and 'shuts down' our central heating system, the gulf stream, itll get colder...then the ice caps will grow as more freezing takes place and the gulf stream will open up again..

 

not sure what your point is about the sahara... so?...

single event?...you forget februarys snow, then the most snow we had had for 13 years... plus our summers havnt been 'hot' for several years... the 'experts' were pointing to the fact that we had not had snowy winters recently as proof of warming.... now those same experts are saying its part of warming... nah...im more sceptical then ever and that hockey stick graph, the one thats the bible of warming theorists has been proven to be inaccurate because the data needs to be interpreted in a certain way to make it work.

 

the vikings settled and farmed greenland, we still cant do that now... past climate was WARMER...fact.

I'm not quite sure what caused the winters between 1987 and 2007 to become seasons where the weather comes from the South West 90% of the time, but that's the main cause for the mild winters, and i think you know that too, though global warming has created these marginal events when the weather does come from different directions, rather than falls that would definitely be snow. Freezing rain or snow that was forecast to be sleet is far more hazardous than just snow, so in fact a 1C warming (or whatever it is, i'm sure it's warming) has in fact made the conditions more treacherous in the south. And lets say that it had been cooling since the vikings farmed greenland (i dunno, 1000-ish?), it stopped cooling in say 1850, and it's been warming, rapidly in the last 50 years. That's 800 years of slow cooling versus 150 years of warming. Even if they warmed/cooled by equal amounts, the warming is far more detrimental. Tbh, i think the dangers of a slight warming aren't all that terrible really, just because sea levels rise it doesn't mean large (as in millions) people are going to die due to flooding, because people will move, right?

I'm not quite sure what caused the winters between 1987 and 2007 to become seasons where the weather comes from the South West 90% of the time, but that's the main cause for the mild winters, and i think you know that too, though global warming has created these marginal events when the weather does come from different directions, rather than falls that would definitely be snow. Freezing rain or snow that was forecast to be sleet is far more hazardous than just snow, so in fact a 1C warming (or whatever it is, i'm sure it's warming) has in fact made the conditions more treacherous in the south. And lets say that it had been cooling since the vikings farmed greenland (i dunno, 1000-ish?), it stopped cooling in say 1850, and it's been warming, rapidly in the last 50 years. That's 800 years of slow cooling versus 150 years of warming. Even if they warmed/cooled by equal amounts, the warming is far more detrimental. Tbh, i think the dangers of a slight warming aren't all that terrible really, just because sea levels rise it doesn't mean large (as in millions) people are going to die due to flooding, because people will move, right?

 

... but the planet still isnt as warm as what it was, that tony robinson programme, man on earth, highlights the historical climate changes that there has always been. the climate never has been a static, totally predictable entity, it has ALWAYS been subject to variation, from dry to wet, hot to cold etc. im totally unconvinced that WE are causing the supposed warming (and the only reason im scepticle of the warming is because the scientists are using so many differing ways of measuring global temperatures) ... im happy to accept the planets probably warming, but we caused it?...

...anyway, the real way to tackle mans effect upon the planet is the curb population growth. scotts bang on there.. the planet simply cannot go on supporting the population explosion as we are rapidly using up resources and fouling the earth.

 

a drastic curb in population in all countries across the globe is the only way to sustain and preserve our speciese at the same time as living in harmony with the planet.

an interesting article from the mail .... :)

 

Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 10:46 PM on 11th January 2010

 

Comments (-) Add to My Stories

Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.

Big chill: Scientists have claimed that the world has entered a 'cold mode' which could last three decades, a theory that challenges climate change

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.

Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.

 

 

If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.

 

 

And now oceanic cycles have switched to a 'cold mode', where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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

Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles - known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs - could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.

Professor Latif said: '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 - as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. 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.'

Many meteorologists have blamed the current freeze on 'Arctic oscillation' - a weather pattern in which areas of high pressure have pushed the warming jetstream away from Britain. They have insisted this temporary change will have no effect on long-term warming patterns.

But another expert, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, said MDOs will continue to determine global temperatures.

He said: 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries. We have such a change now.'

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0cVt5gA7F

 

its conflicting data like this that fuels my man made global warming scepticism. i dont think for one second that we fully understand what effects our climate with any degree of certainty. there are so many variables, so many unknowns, so much we dont understand. if these finding are anything like true....then there will be some very red faced posters on THIS board who swallow everything the 'experts' tell us without questioning the data :lol:

The scientist quoted in that article has complained that he has been misquoted - nothing new for the Daily Hate-Mail

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...ing-mojib-latif

 

 

The scientist quoted in that article has complained that he has been misquoted - nothing new for the Daily Hate-Mail

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...ing-mojib-latif

 

...and that article confuses the issue even further, especially the "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions." ... there you go... at best they reckon we might be effecting the climate to a degree but are NOT responsible for it.

 

my charge stands.... we do not FULLY understand all the elements that contribute to the way our climate behaves, the assumptions made to 'prove' global warming is man made are based on incomplete data, selectively chosing which data to use and ignoring others (in exactly the same way the bible was formed <_< ).

...but again, think of all the things that would result from taking action against global warming. You have nations such as Bangladesh at huge risk seasonally, you have nations such as the Maldives, or Kiribati and other Pacific island nations who face their very EXISTENCE at risk.

 

What would taking action imply? Transferring away from fossil fuels, which are finite and will eventually run out. Going towards more green, more efficient fuels. Safeguarding against energy loss, further preventing inefficiency. Are these at all bad things to be doing? Think of it this way. The evidence is pretty compelling, but if it doesn't turn out to be true, what would we have at all lost by taking action against it? IMO, the risks if the deniers are wrong (and frankly, some of the undercover reports from the denial industry show them to be pretty self-interested on this issue, almost to an extent where it seems like they know they can't be entirely true...) are massive compared to the little we would lose if the global warming scientists are right. Indeed, what would we lose? Fossil fuel industries mainly. Given their infamy for horrific business practices in places such as Nigeria, let me be the first to express what a tragedy losing them would be! :rolleyes: