Here we go again! Another excuse for the global warming canard's failure to perform, when the real culprit is the normal climatological ebb and flow of planet earth since it's birth. I hope Gizmag isn't going all "Pop Mech" on us (i.e., becoming an establishment mouthpiece). Politics have no place in Gizmag ... so knock it off!
10th February, 2014 @ 11:27 p.m. (California Time)
Global warming, who cares.
The truly amazing thing is that we honestly think it a reasonable thing to burn through a resource that needed hundreds of millions of years to accumulate, in just a few human lifetimes. And when confronted, a majority of us is happy to say "don't worry, let our kids figure out how to deal with their energy problem".
Our kids of the future would probably reply "well if is so simple, why don't you figure it out yourselves instead of burning this stuff in the tanks of your vehicles"...stuff that can also be used to make products, chemicals, medicine. We burn it to move our sorry asses around.
If we can't figure out how to power our indulgences, we shouldn't indulge. Simple as that. We got no right to these fossils, not to that much of them.
10th February, 2014 @ 11:33 p.m. (California Time)
There is nothing to say to fear porn but the truth, Global Warming as alarmists know it has been disproven as man made through the principles of scientific experimentation, it is therefore a false predicate to declare warming at this point to be man made. However a vast and self perpetuating RELIGION requiring funding at least equal to that of the pro carbon lobby has hijacked the political process and all media. Slandering any nay sayers as Denyiers (Climate Change Deny(Liars))
Humans as of yet are not altering the Earth climate to the point where they are the determing factor in global warming.
In 400 years however this will not be the case,
at this point man made global warming will be the deciding force behind climate and humans will have to leave the Earth.
400 years ago:
In 1698 the first steam engine was invented
No human being had travelled faster than 20mph
The first ballon flight was in 1783
The Agricultural revoluton 1750
The World population was 600 million
William Harrison created the only clocks which could accurately measure time using the gridiron pendulum a method of compensating for metalic expansion using alternating metal strips.
In 1909 the Wright Brothers first flight.
1969 First moon landing.
Where will we be in another 400 years ?
Succumb to Eco Terrorism and you will not have decendants to find out -a Population crash : 1 2 Billion to 600 million
11th February, 2014 @ 2:22 a.m. (California Time)
By all means listen to an astrophysicist to get detailed knowledge of climate change, especially one whose population predictions do not match any that I have ever come across and who seems completely incapable of including the fact that it takes energy to make solar panels and build power stations into his calculations.
As for this article, I imagine that their work has taken a significant period of time to gather the data which has led to fact they are a bit late to the party. Cowtan and Way have now shown that the reason that it was thought that there has been a hiatus is simply due to the fact that the Arctic is not well covered with weather stations and seeing as the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, entirely in line with model predictions, the lack of data for that region has skewed the picture.
Not that this paper is invalid in any way and indeed we know from measuring ocean temperatures that a significant amount of heat is going into them, especially at depth. We can only wait for the next significant El Niño and a lot of this buried heat will be released. Of course, to suggest that we get the body-bags ready would be alarmist, so I will let the need for them become apparent when it happens.
For anyone wishing to study the matter in any depth, there are two websites that are worth visiting, WUWT and skepticalscience.com. One is what L1ma would call an alarmist site and the other is a denier site. I leave you to work out which is which and which one treats the matter scientifically and which one doesn't.
11th February, 2014 @ 4:40 a.m. (California Time)
@L1ma you firstly offer a baseless opinion in the face of vast evidence to the contrary, then list a series of completely irrelevant random facts. Do come back when you have a coherent argument.
11th February, 2014 @ 5:01 a.m. (California Time)
It would be nice if those who think global warming is man made don't treat those who disagree with contempt.
It is not easy to predict weather a week from today (since there are so many variables that constantly change), yet some predict what the weather will be like years from now.
I am for using less petrolium products but only because I think alternative energy sources are cool and not just green.
11th February, 2014 @ 5:41 a.m. (California Time)
"We, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists, have modified our Theory to allow for inconvenient facts and we will continue change our Theory no matter what facts may come. Be afraid, BE AFRAID!"
11th February, 2014 @ 5:50 a.m. (California Time)
We know the climate has changed before, with disastrous results (including cannibalism in Europe, in historic -- not prehistoric -- times.) We know that it seems to be changing now, and we have already seen some disasters.
We don't know yet exactly which way it will go, but we know that it will go, and if we were rational, we would prepare for either way. Katrina proved that while the United States is very good as destroying smaller countries, it is not able to protect its own citizens from nature. If we were rational we would prepare for whatever may come -- hot or cold and storms etc -- and quit this stupid rationalizations about whether there will be change or not.
And yes -- common sense says that since fossil fuels are without question a finite resource, we should try to conserve, rather than waste them.
11th February, 2014 @ 7:04 a.m. (California Time)
The effects people have on the weather are slim, 0.003% at best and more likely 0.0005%. The current climate models drastically under estimate the effects the sun, solar winds, and cosmic energy have on the earth. One powerful Coronal Mass Ejection, solar wind or cosmic ray and all life could be obliterated in a day. Just the same if you have a solar loll we can find ourselves with blistering cold temperatures across the globe.
Overall there happens to be a 22 year solar cycle and a 200,000 year cosmic cycle. We happen to currently be at a solar high in the 22 year cycle but that high is cycling low (this year should be colder than most expected). On the cosmic side of things we are just approaching a high and will be there for several thousand years with temps on average about 2-3 degrees warmer than the average over the past 30,000 years. This cosmic 200,000 year cycle is more likely the cause of the earth warming. Believe it or not, it's just what I have found looking into what affects the weather. Also check out suspicious0bservers on YouTube to explain for a global weather update and to learn how to monitor the suns activity.
I find it interesting that people think fossil fuels are finite. Fossil fuels are dug up used and then recycled. It may not be immediate but the gas we burn goes into the air then back down through rain or absorbed by vegetation and helps plants grow, which are then used for food, building materials, or fuel. Regardless the atoms are not gone, and can be picked up combined and separated again and again.
Also for those of you worried about our kids, they will be fine (so long as they don't die from war, or virus before they have a chance to grow up). They have fission, fusion, solar, geothermal, hydro-electric and many other chemical thermal energies to look forward to consuming/using.
11th February, 2014 @ 8:12 a.m. (California Time)
If the world is warming up what's the big deal?
The major claim is that cities might flood due to increased sea levels, once again what's the big deal? Abandon the city and move! We as humans have been nomadic for millions of years and really have only stopped the nomadic lifestyle in the last 100 years!
It is a common fact that the world has fluctuated in temperature for millions of years, from ice ages to global tropics.
The benefits of a global increase in temperature would mean a great increase of agricultural land in the northern US, Canada and Russia. And that would support a larger human population.
So all and all global warming would be a good thing for humans.
11th February, 2014 @ 8:27 a.m. (California Time)
"This causes heat to be drawn from the atmosphere into the waters below the ocean's surface and the colder water to rise to the top".
OK, maybe I'm being dense (excuse the pun), but this makes no sense. Cold water sinks, because it is more dense, it does not rise. Fresh water is most dense at 4C, but this is not so for salt water. I checked Wikipedia and there's nothing about convenction currents of cold water rising.
11th February, 2014 @ 8:43 a.m. (California Time)
I'm the first to admit that I don't know but I do recognize when someone is grasping at explanations that "might" support his theory and it's getting mighty smelly in here!
This is just another example of us, humans, in our arrogance, believing that because something in our world is changing IT MUST BE CHANGING BECAUSE OF SOMETHING WE DID. And yet the same climatologists ignore inconvenient facts like the massive amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by volcanos located at Iceland and elsewhere?
Here is what I do know. The earth will end as we know it sooner or later. Based on past climate shifts the change will happen suddenly and will be caused by some action outside of our control.
11th February, 2014 @ 8:47 a.m. (California Time)
L1ma, you wrote, "Humans as of yet are not altering the Earth climate to the point where they are the determing factor in global warming." You should come out of your cave and look around, look at the data, read the science. On second thought, best for you to stay there and let the rest of us figure it out.
11th February, 2014 @ 9:01 a.m. (California Time)
98% of climate scientists say global warming is real. 2% of scientists all working for Big Fossil say its not. Who are you going to believe?
11th February, 2014 @ 9:01 a.m. (California Time)
what is that i hear............ bang...........bang.........bang
oh that's right it is the nails being hammered into the coffin of global warming.
good lord this is reaching.
even IF temps are rising, i doubt it has anything to do with humans, and if it is, i agree with Mr. Eisinger above, it might be a good thing. after all didn't the snow in Greenland, or was it Iceland, that is receding, reveal a mining town that had been covered by the ice? back when everyone thought we were having a new ice age in the 70's, i remember reading in popular science i think, how this would change the face of our planet by the 2000's, they had pictures of New York covered in ice.
i just love the fear mongering "be afraid, BE AFRAID"
please go watch your Hollywood movies about global warming and leave the rest of us to deal with the real problems
11th February, 2014 @ 9:31 a.m. (California Time)
No worming in the past 17 years.
There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’
1) Low Solar Activity
2) Oceans Ate Warming
3) Chinese Coal Use
4) Montreal Protocol
5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed
7) Decline in Water Vapor
Why should I believe in the reason #8. It's getting ridicules. It's overwhelming consensus right. Most of the models about 85% are wrong. How can we trust climate scientists. I don't anymore.
11th February, 2014 @ 9:43 a.m. (California Time)
i was just wondering, Did that Russian icebreaker that was headed out to study warming temps in the arctic ever got out of the unexpected giant ice flow they were stuck in?
11th February, 2014 @ 9:46 a.m. (California Time)
Global warming - correction: global cooling - is making climate scientists look like a bunch of monkeys fornicating with a football.
11th February, 2014 @ 9:57 a.m. (California Time)
I will believe it all when ALL the facts are in…How do these "global scientist" explain the rises and falls in earths temperatures from hundreds and thousands of years ago? (proof found in core drillings)…. I'm SURE we are warming, but for how long???? Ask those in the snow and ice storms on the eastern part of the U.S. what THEY think…. LOL!
11th February, 2014 @ 9:58 a.m. (California Time)
It's always wise to be responsible with the use of resources -- that's why I'm for maximizing efficiency and funding lots of research towards that end. I'm all for using renewable energy sources and think it just makes sense; fossil fuels are a finite resource.
But neither do I blindly follow along with the global warming, er, climate change crowd. It IS a religion to some of them. I will stick with the facts. When the first line of this article can honestly leave the words, "consensus" and "most likely" out, then they will have a chance at convincing me. Remember, it used to be consensus that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.
11th February, 2014 @ 10:38 a.m. (California Time)
Matt Fletcher, solar activity rose from 1940 to its recent peak around 1962. Global temperatures fell in that period. As temperatures rose from 1980, solar activity fell. The study at CERN of cosmic rays as a cause of cloud formation has produced no evidence. Milankovitch cycles occur over millenia, not the few decades in which we have seen glacial melting, northward shifting of temperate forests, etc. Atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily and temperatures trended upward with the increased burning of fossil fuels. That is the only clear correlation and is consistent with scientific theory and observation. Why is anybody other than fossil carbon interests looking elsewhere?
11th February, 2014 @ 10:47 a.m. (California Time)
Doesn't matter if its man made or not. Nothing will change.
All the oil will be burned. Count on it.
The thing that makes a lot of us skeptics roll our eyes is when anyone says things like "do this or that and help stop global warming".
Or vote for "this" party and help stop global warming.
Umm, you cant stop global climate change. You can only adapt to it.
BTW. I remember in the 70,s Climate Scientists banging the fear drum about the new (imminent) ice age that was coming.
Made the cover of many magazines, Time, Popular science and others.
Documentaries on tv also. Remember that? Hmm, I guess they were wrong huh? If it happened before it WILL happen again.
11th February, 2014 @ 10:49 a.m. (California Time)
"2% of scientists all working for Big Fossil say its not."
All I know is that 58.4% of all statistics are made up. Yours seem to fit into that category.
11th February, 2014 @ 11:05 a.m. (California Time)
sr29067: If you add gravity to the formula, it is indeed possible for warm and/or less-dense water to naturally sink into colder and heavier water and thereby displace it up to the surface.
Water likes to be a flat mirror surface, but the winds whip it up into waves that are higher than the normal level. Gravity pulls the raised waves straight down with enough force to push some of the underlying water down, too. The deeper water being impinged upon has nowhere to go but up. A lot of the power is displaced sideways in both the down and up trips and it's not very efficient, but the scale more than compensates.
A more focused version of the same down-welling principal is the floating-donut Salter Sink:
"The Salter Sink works as a wave powered pump. Waves push hot water into the top of the cylinder, which pumps the water inside down. It comes out the bottom (around 200 meters below) and mixes with colder water. This brings the temperature on the surface down over time. A Salter Sink can move about a gigawatt of thermal energy!"
More, with graphics, @ http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=321
If enough of these SS's were deployed in the right places at the right times, it would dial the atmospheric CO2 levels back down to a sustainable range, even with the continued burning of fossil fuels. With the knock-on effects, it would also save the whales and feed the hungry.
In the case of this particular climate phenomenon, perhaps this organic heat storage mechanism is a part of the Gaean Plan to regulate climate and we probably shouldn't muck with it. It seems to be making a positive immediate difference in temps, so it's at least buying us a little more time to come home to sanity. In any event, the dilution/absorption capacity of the deep ocean is 50 times that of the surface, so it will take a while for this "energy bucket" to fill. In the meantime, the deep ocean currents distribute it out even further.
It also seems to be self-sustaining, in that a warm water concentration causes the air above it to heat and rise, thereby creating low air pressure into which higher pressure air flows. aka Trade Winds. As often happens with climate, Cause and Effect keep trading places. Unfortunately, most climate interactions are neither as rapid nor as stable as this one.
11th February, 2014 @ 11:33 a.m. (California Time)
Pah. The increased trade winds (undocumented data) would increase turbulence in the air, dissipating heat before it ever got transferred to the ocean. The tiny fraction that got transferred to the ocean due to the increased surface area of wind-driven waves will mix to the wavelength depth - 60 feet or so. That should show up on satellite temperature data. Seen any evidence of this yet?
Don't trust climate models - they are adjusted to the modelers prejudices. They are supposed to be validated by data, not just one approximate temp datum. Ever hear of error bars, Professor England?
The entropy of the whole Earth-Sun system is the issue here. It may be convenient to model crude heat balances without reference to turbulence or solar effects, but it is not sufficient justification for the huge quantities of human and financial capital at risk here.
11th February, 2014 @ 11:44 a.m. (California Time)
Two facts seem often to be omitted because most have not seen them. Firstly the fossil oil theory is just that - a theory dreamed up by puzzled western scientists to put in school books to accidentally mislead the population. By contrast the Northern European scientists created their own theory about oil. The speculated that oil came from dying bacteria deep in the mantle which lived off gases thrown up from the magma. Their theory is now proven. Look up abiotic oil and biotic oil. So it looks like underground oil is a renewable resource and will be as long as this planet exists and continues to have magma producing gases.
The second relevant fact is that CERN has not yet completed its CLOUD experiments which were stated to be expected to prove that global climate was controlled by solar effects upon cosmic rays which affected the atmosphere. In the CERN press office release they say: This is an important step forward, but we still have a long way to go before we fully understand the processes of aerosol formation and their effects on clouds and climate.”
We have to still wait for their answer. In the meantime all else is speculation myth and / or fanciful fund-raising.
11th February, 2014 @ 12:13 p.m. (California Time)
Follow the money... global warming is fraud, just a money making scheme.
11th February, 2014 @ 12:37 p.m. (California Time)
I didn't know so many idiotic climate change/big oil apologist came to Gizmag. All of these people who say global warming don't exist are also people who think, or don't think anything of the use a gasoline/petroleum. These guys are nothing but oil drones at best, idiots at worst.
I hate all the pseudoscience behind "debunking" climate change. There is a mountain of evidence that proves climate change. I noticed the people who deny global warming also ignore fracking and tar sands... Hmmm I wonder why ?
11th February, 2014 @ 12:44 p.m. (California Time)
Matt Fletcher's comment makes the most sense here. I love how the Global Warming Cheerleaders throw out the statistic that "98% of scientists say Global Warming is real". No, 98% of the scientists that agree to the GW hypothesis are working for the IPCC, or they derive a significant portion of their income/funding by being on the GW Bandwagon.
The sad truth is that scientists, much to the chagrin of my childhood conception, are the same as every other profession. That is, they are just as money-hungry, power-mad and biased to the vested interests that are lining their pockets, much like your average politician. There is NO money is chasing the obvious science of studying the sun's effect on our climate, the ocean or natural disasters. The IPCC and all of their contributors are putting their money on the man-made global warming scenario, and they are not about to let any other horse even enter the race.
It's all about Global Governance, taxing and restricting developed countries while undeveloped countries get a free ride to churn out pollution equal to the amount of pollution that was reduced by their neighbors. It's about the already rich World Bankers getting richer. The same people leading the Global Warming Brigade are the same ones who have manipulated and wrecked the economies of all the major countries in the world. They don't care one iota about the future of our planet.
Hey, I am in love with nature as much as any tree-hugger, and I'm all for reducing our "carbon footprint" any way we can. But we need to quit lying to people that humans are the cause of any of the dramatic weather changes we see. Pseudo-scientific drum-banging is not the answer to making this planet a better place to live. We need common-sense expansion of alternative energy ideas, responsible recycling, practical mass-transit and other intelligent solutions.
11th February, 2014 @ 1:12 p.m. (California Time)
As soon as I read the title of this article I immediately put my fist to my mouth and coughed, "bullshi..." Cred lost.
11th February, 2014 @ 1:34 p.m. (California Time)
Okay, Gizmag, I definitely expected better of you. Please leave the Kool-Aid at home.
ERROR #1: That "consensus study" linked to in the first sentence of the article suffers from EXACTLY the same failure as the long-discredited Oreskes "study" of the same subject: it was a search of the literature for the phrase "global climate change". Any paper which did not contain that exact phrase were excluded from the results. This is explained right there in the "methodology" section of the paper.
Is it really necessary to mention that papers which do not agree with the current AGW models may not (and as subsequent searches show, do not) contain the phrase "global climate change" at all?
This is a classic case of "lying with statistics". Self-selection is something every competent scientist is taught to prevent in statistical analyses. The fact that they did it anyway, AND that it is being repeated, is telling. People are still mentioning the Oreskes study as though it were gospel even though it was thoroughly discredited almost 10 years ago.
ERROR #2: As has been pointed out many, many times by now: "consensus" is not science. The history of scientific breakthroughs has been one of overturning the scientific consensus. And usually, it has been only one or a few people who did so, despite the overwhelming, global scientific consensus they had to fight to make their views known.
Consensus is no measure of correctness. Period.
11th February, 2014 @ 1:42 p.m. (California Time)
Educate yourself. YES, there is GLOBAL WARMING. Are we causing it?
Google "Unstoppable Global Warming", buy a copy, read it , give it to a friend.
11th February, 2014 @ 2:08 p.m. (California Time)
The article headlines the pause but instead it could have focused on the implication: namely that once that pause is over atmospheric warming will be massive as the ocean no longer absorbs as much heat.
Joe Romm makes that point here:
Climatologist: When Souped-Up Ocean Warming Ends, ‘Global Temperatures Look Set To Rise Rapidly’
11th February, 2014 @ 2:12 p.m. (California Time)
With all the ocean diving I have done I have only seen hot water under the ocean near hot volcanic activity.
Any water warmed up by the atmosphere stays right on top of the surface of the water, not below as this reports states. Your hot water heater at home will show you the same fact.
11th February, 2014 @ 2:17 p.m. (California Time)
So, as the "hiatus" AKA "pause" gets longer and the Xbox games climate models become ever more discredited, along comes yet another clutching-at-straws attempt to perpetuate the increasingly dubious AGW hypothesis, this time apparently reversing the laws of convection, and mostly composed of ifs, buts and maybes.
For what it's worth, it appears to be a variant on this article that appeared in this month's 'Nature', entitled "Climate change: The case of the missing heat" and commencing: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation."
Unfortunately for the theory in question, neither the Argo nor CERES equipment shows any evidence of the "missing heat", nor does the data on wind speed indicate any change outside historical limits.
11th February, 2014 @ 4:06 p.m. (California Time)
The verifiable facts are proving there is no man made global warming.
So this study is just another desperate attempt to keep the global warming scam going for people who are getting rich from it - Al Gore and his partners at Goldman Sachs, David Suzuki, Tides Foundation, Green Peace, etc.
11th February, 2014 @ 6:18 p.m. (California Time)
Rational dialogue on the subject Global Warming never happens. Those who believe in it (for some it is practically their religion) often drown out those who try to suggest that Science and Scientists are continually progressing which means that all current theories are subject to change.
I have nothing against scientists but I find it ridiculous that anyone with the title scientist gets way more credit than they should. Often, these scientists have nothing to do with climate, yet their opinion is heralded as if climate was their specialty.
I would like to see someone on the GW bandwagon admit that they just cannot predict the future with any reasonable degree of accuracy. This is what makes me occupy the stance I do.
My stance is perhaps the world is warming. Perhaps after it is done warming it will begin to cool. In my study of the subject (I am not a scientist) there is simply no evidence to support the idea that our globe, which may be in a warming trend relative to a given timeframe, will just continue to warm with no stopping.
I believe that the warming trends will always be followed by cooling trends. If the globe begins to cool, the ramifications of a runaway cooling event will be as damaging as any warming would be. Perhaps different species will go extinct because of it but the damage will be there.
Let's not make long lasting huge financial decisions and outlays based on possibilities.
The ozone hole which was getting larger at one time was going to create a horrific chain of events. In the end many believe that the ozone hole is a breathing mechanism. Now with the hole shrinking the apparent result will be a rise in global temperatures. ?!?
I simply believe that we don't know near enough, and perhaps never will, to make sweeping decisions that create undue economic burdens on many countries including poor countries. IMF funds are withheld from nations if they were to try to establish a coal fired electricity generation facility. Big Brother wants to make sure they only use renewable resources to achieve their economic dreams! Talk about hubris!
Just a little sanity and a comment that they really don't know what the outcomes will be would be appreciated. That and an admission that scientists from all walks of life may not know more about the global climate than the rest of us.
I guarantee when their predictions prove wrong, not one will step up and say "Wow, we really blew it!"
11th February, 2014 @ 6:53 p.m. (California Time)
It has long been my unverified assumption that those individuals who read GizMag were emotionally mature, educated, intelligent and well informed people who would be capable of "Critical Thinking".
I was so wrong.
I've just read 27 comments written in response to this article and was astounded to find that, with few exceptions, many were people who are unaware of, or choose to deny, documented and verified climate change science.
They give their uninformed opinion, without citing ANY science that would support what they say (because there IS none).
These fools have "drunk the cool-aid" and joined the ranks of deniers who have swallowed the misinformation and outright lies of those who stand to profit by maintaining the status quo.
From "L1ma" who says: "Global Warming, as alarmists know it, has been disproven as man made through the principles of scientific experimentation", but cites no scientific source to support this bullshit,
to "BigWarpGuy" who says: "It is not easy to predict weather a week from today, yet some predict what the weather will be like years from now" who has confused the term "weather" with the term "climate", proving he has no understanding of the difference between those terms, then on to "observer101" who says: "Ask those in the snow and ice storms on the eastern part of the U.S. what THEY think" who is totally unaware that this weather is a perfect example of the effects of climate change, and then on to "Brian Mcc" who says: "I remember in the 70,s Climate Scientists banging the fear drum about the new (imminent) ice age that was coming", except the scientist said NO such thing. It was the scientifically illiterate reporters, looking for a headline, who took words out of context from a report they didn't understand and misinformed all of us accordingly in an effort to sell newspapers (why is he unaware of this?), and finally down to "3rdworldman" who says 98% of climate scientists "are money-hungry, power-mad and biased to the vested interests that are lining their pockets", which is a quote he copied from those who are paid to muddy the waters by using the same misinformation play book that was used by the tobacco industry to trick us into believing the health problems associated with cigarette smoking were non existent for so many years.
By forestalling the action necessary to deal with the effects of climate change, the way of life we have grown accustomed to will be forever altered and NOT for the better.
Shame on you all.
11th February, 2014 @ 7:29 p.m. (California Time)
I have to say that trying to deny Global Warming as a consequence of world industrialization has a perfect comparison with the expression "ignoring the elephant in the living room".
On this side in South America ocean temperatures and currents have changed dramatically, causing weather anomalies and unusual shifts in sea species' population. Rain seasons have shifted and our glaciers are gone (not retreated....gone). I would please ask you to see James Balog's documentary, "Chasing Ice" (available on Netflix) before you reply. Its last part is simply breathtaking, shocking proof. Either we face it or continue "ignoring the elephant". I am 50 years old now and know quite well this side of our world, and how it used to be.
We can't keep this fuel burning madness going on anymore. Each of us has a task to do: practical example is still the most convincing tool.
I sincerely hope you take an open-minded look at "Chasing Ice".
11th February, 2014 @ 8:34 p.m. (California Time)
Colder weather = Anthropogenic Global Warming, Kumbaya! (AGWK)
Warmer weather = AGWK.
Wetter weather = AGWK.
Drier weather = AGWK.
More wind = AGWK.
Less wind= AGWK.
I wish these AGWK religious fanatics folks would get -something- straight, at least once in their lives. Mother Nature is doing her thing and we'll just have to cope, whatever it is.
I agree with most people that we should tread more lightly on the Earth. Let's lose this hopelessness and total Luddite wave which is about to overtake us. Political Correctness + AGWK = An early death for civilization, fer chrissake!
11th February, 2014 @ 8:42 p.m. (California Time)
"underground oil is a renewable resource ..." So is coal. We just have to wait a few hundred million years. The same timescale would apply to "dying bacteria deep in the mantle".
"CERN has not yet completed its CLOUD experiments ..", "We have to still wait for their answer. In the meantime all else is speculation myth..." According to [http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change], "Then, using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols." So far, after more than four years, the only answer from CERN as to whether a reduction in cosmic rays could reduce cloud formation and thereby cause global warming is, "No". But we already have the answer to the same question about CO2. It does and has caused warming.
11th February, 2014 @ 9:10 p.m. (California Time)
@L1maLots of irrelevant misinformation here.
I can run faster than 20mph. At least I ustacud.
The problem with deniers is that a belief requires no factual basis and is supported without the use of logic. There has been much research on climates and climate change going at least as far back as the mid 1800s. Deniers can find research to cherry pick data from to support their belief. Understanding is not required.
This is a complicated subject and experiments are difficult to impossible. Imagine having the entire world not driving cars and trucks for a year to see how that affects the atmosphere. And you would have to run this experiment for a decade to see a significant measurable change in the earth’s climate. So we make models and continue to improve them as more information becomes available. We run lab tests to try to understand some little detail. We make predictions and see if they hold up. It can be more interesting if they do not. We scratch our heads and make more measurements to understand better what is happening.
As with the campaign of the tobacco companies to delude people that smoking was not only not harmful but actually good for you so has the campaign to delude people about climate research been successful. The misinformation campaign has been a lot more successful here in the USA than in the rest of the world.
It is not just the scientifically illiterate reporters looking for a headline, but many companies in many industries have a vested interest in denying climate change. Some have spent a lot of money on advertising, political contributions, and campaigns to discredit scientists and research. While life can be hard and reality harsh, denial is easy.
Climate change deniers are as gullible as smokers were and denial justifies their lifestyle. Logic is about as useful here as trying to drain a swimming pool by beating a hole in the bottom with your head.
11th February, 2014 @ 9:14 p.m. (California Time)
99% of the people that claim that there is not any global warming are AGWists trying to discredit anybody questioning the effect man has had on global climate.
Yes the globe has been averaging warmer since the peak of the Little Ice Age right about when the thermometer was invented in the 1600s growing season and other secondary evidence of temperature show the world is not as warm as the peak before the Little Ice Age.
11th February, 2014 @ 11:44 p.m. (California Time)
Unfortunately global warming (and its causes) or no global warming has become more of a religion than science.
The important thing is resources are limited ( viewing earth as a spaceship is a great concept!) - two simple things need to be done
Control population growth to fit the capability of the earth and the required standard of living
Invest in renewable - carbon based sources will eventual run out irrespective of global warming (or not)
If we don't, then it doesn't really matter, the earth will survive anyway - we might not ...
12th February, 2014 @ 3:57 a.m. (California Time)
One day they will discover that the 1-degree Celsius "global warming" charted over the past 40 years is in direct proportion to the area of the earth covered by asphalt and concrete. Rainwater runs off instead of joining the groundwater system, the sun is reflected and intensified, heat is trapped and radiated, environment-stabilizing trees (and other vegetation) are removed in great swaths and the number of warm bodies on the planet has increased 12-fold (not to mention the massive meat and non-meat-producing food factories required to feed such a population).
Sounds like the earth is, in fact, alive and capable of responding to such assaults by adjusting its own complex equilibrium.
12th February, 2014 @ 6:58 a.m. (California Time)
The answer is humans have as yet not proven to be affecting the Earths climate. The climate models are wrong and cannot predict the Earths climate, and definately cannot prove man made global warming.
Rinse and repeat.
Not yet, not until there are 14 or more billion of us all wanting an SUV, 3 Bedroom mansion with Soviet era coal fire heating and power supplied from coal fired power stations at which point radiant heat alone will accomplish what CO2 has failed to do. It is not long off.
12th February, 2014 @ 8:55 a.m. (California Time)
@ Slowburn - Says: "the "world" is not as warm as the peak before the Little Ice Age".
The Little Ice Age cold temperatures were a regional phenomena (not world wide) experienced by people living in North America and Europe and was likely caused by a high and low pressure reversal called a Negative NOA (high over Iceland and low over Azores) resulting in a change of weather patterns perhaps initiated by a "Maunder minimum" (low sunspot activity) that occurred at that time.
This being said, there was no way to tell what GLOBAL temperatures of the land, ocean and upper atmosphere were at the time in order to determine an overall global average.
Right now, if you live on the west coast of the US it's warm and dry, if you live on the east coast you're dealing with cold & ice and England is getting more rain than anytime in the last 250 years. These are recognized as "changes" to the usual weather patterns.
It would be an error to say that the whole world was getting to much rain or that the whole world was cold & icy OR warm and dry, because these conditions are regional.
Global warming causes "climate change".
This "changed" climate will cause weather patterns to change from what we have been accustomed to, to something else.
Cold where it was warm, hot where it was moderate, to much rain or not enough rain, because regional weather, due to climate change, caused by a small amount of global warming is altering weather patterns worldwide.
The Winter Olympics are being held in unusually warm temperatures for the area while the east coast of the US is unusually frigid.
THIS, is an perfect example of the "change" in the climate that results in unusual regional weather.
No sane person can say we are not beginning to experience a change in our usual "weather" patterns (due to the "climate" change caused by global warming).
The problem is NOT that the earth is getting warmer, it's the SPEED at which this is occurring.
If I take the lead from a 22 shell and throw it at your head there won't be much damage, but if I fire it from a rifle, the SPEED it's travelling at, when it hits your head, will cause massive damage.
The earth has NEVER warmed this quickly before.
16th February, 2014 @ 9:58 p.m. (California Time)
Human beings, unlike all other animals on Earth have no natural equilibrium with their environment. When animals of a species become too numerous they either separate into groups and migrate, or they produce fewer offspring.
The Earth is a living thing. And it is remarkably resilient. Just ask the dinosaurs how well the Earth did after they left. Not to mention the ratio of biological diversity that was lost...and yet we're still discovering new species of plant and animal life to this day.
The key ingredients for making life is found in space. Who is to say that in another million years we won't have a completely different set of biological entities from what is here today? It has happened in the past.
There is no such thing as Settled Science. That is a logical fallacy.
If science is anything it is the process of discovery and seeking the truth. If my name was Isaac Newton, and I told you that g = a/2...and then one day a team of researchers found out that g = a/2.0002 - AND because many other scientists based their mathematical equations upon my best guess that this now means that all of their work is incorrect and full of holes - or even a "Black Hole", then the problem should not be covered up. a LAW can be proven and holds up in every test, whenever tested. A Theory is something which cannot be proven.
Which is why Einstein had a THEORY of relativity, and not a LAW of relativity.
4a - In much the same way Correlation is does not mean Causation.
In the 15+ year research into the climate change of the late 70's - 90's the only "correlation" that was found was CO2.
At that time, mankind had never seen or been able to produce Dark Energy. What does that have anything to do with CO2? Well, the warming effects of CO2 cannot be reproduced accurately without some Tweaking. It's like getting frustrated with a puzzle, giving up, and then just MAKING the puzzle piece fit.
It doesn't take a Scientist or a PHD to understand that not how things work. And those who argue that you couldn't understand because you're "not a climatologist" do a great disservice to themselves, as they freely admit their own incompetence. It's the equivalent of submitting to another because they can do MAGIC. Science is not magic. Nor is it all math.
There is a logical fallacy called a False Cause. It is when presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one causes the other. That is what exists for man-made CO2.
Those who are likely to believe that CO2 (which is chemically consistent in it's man made and natural forms) causes global warming, are also likely to believe that there is no such thing as cheap or free energy, when it's extremely self-evident that the world is Energy based, and not Matter based.
What do protons run on? Do they use gas? What happens when a proton runs out of energy to keep running in it's orbit, does the entire molecule break down? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics claims that this is impossible, and yet the simplest building blocks of life break this law all of the time. As does sonoluminescence. --and yet a Pistol Shrimp can produce as much energy as the sun for a second in a air bubble with a snap of it's claw. -Which clearly violates many laws, and yet this is an observable fact which IS.
With all that science does not know, for them to claim the only correlation which they could find does not make it good science...it makes it lazy science.
I for one believe that energy is freely available and all around us, if we and find out how to channel it. Using fossil fuels is just a waste of time and resources for the sole purpose of making a few people rich.
There is more explosive power in a glass of water than in 100 gallons of gasoline.
18th February, 2014 @ 12:31 p.m. (California Time)
Why didn't this get displayed in the models?
23rd February, 2014 @ 8:55 a.m. (California Time)