This is the million dollar question, how much of our current global warming
phase effect is down to nature and how much down to those contributions made by
humans. The answer is, "No one knows", but if you think you have discovered the
answer to this question, and your scientifically proved to be correct, you will
win your self a Nobel prize. ...

Well... There's the historical big names:

The History of Climate Science


And there's the more recent reports:

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

Of those who have an opinion, over 97% say we're to blame

... More-cynical skeptics may also argue that the scientists involved are merely perpetuating the "myth" of AGW because they are in an echo chamber of group reinforcement or are anxious to keep their grant money flowing.

Perhaps. But the likelihood that over 97 per cent of climate scientists who have expressed an opinion on AGW as being that self-deluded or venal is as "vanishingly small" as the number of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly or implicitly deny the consensus among climate scientists that we humans are major contributors to global warming.


Our industry and farming really are that big and that polluting.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Well... There's the historical big names:

The History of Climate Science


And there's the more recent reports:

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

ML, it's time they proved it then which at the moment all are unable to do.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Well... There's the historical big names:

The History of Climate Science


And there's the more recent reports:

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

ML, it's time they proved it then which at the moment all are unable to do.

So... Which part of The History of Climate Science isn't 'proved'?

What is your hard evidence that we can pollute the atmosphere to double the concentration of CO2 'all with no physical change'?


This latest little snippet sums up the case nicely:

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

... The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.


Note that what 'argument' there is, is all about the ever finer detail of the results of the changes we are forcing. That we are forcing rapid change was determined long ago. That publicized agreement is what set in motion the fossil fuels sponsored campaign of FUD continuing from years ago...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

This is the million dollar question, how much of our current global warming
phase effect is down to nature and how much down to those contributions made by
humans. The answer is, "No one knows", but if you think you have discovered the
answer to this question, and your scientifically proved to be correct, you will
win your self a Nobel prize.

The last mini ice age was from 1300-1850 where the river Thames froze over and they held frost fairs on it in London.

Glen, the span 1300 - 1850 (550 years) I think is a bout 200 - 250 years too long.
The mini warming and cooling phases tend to last for around 300 years in time,
in the UK anyway, but can be longer on the continent. The one main reason why
the Thames froze over, other than it being cold enough then, was because the
flow of this river was slower due to bridge construction obstructions during
those times. It was evident by scholarly observations that the climate in the
UK was turning much milder by 1814 so it looks likely that a new phase of global
warming had already set in by 1814 if not even earlier.

Sorry mate do some more research there is a well known reason why , give you a clue look at the date it happened and what events also happened at that time but in another part of the world you may also look at what keeps your area of the world from being frozen even today mmm the Gulf Stream maybe . Study "Weather" . I have already stated some of it in other posts Also I did not say that the Thames Froze over that was another user .

---

Well... There's the historical big names:

The History of Climate Science


And there's the more recent reports:

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

ML, it's time they proved it then which at the moment all are unable to do.

So... Which part of The History of Climate Science isn't 'proved'?

What is your hard evidence that we can pollute the atmosphere to double the concentration of CO2 'all with no physical change'?


This latest little snippet sums up the case nicely:

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

... The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.


Note that what 'argument' there is, is all about the ever finer detail of the results of the changes we are forcing. That we are forcing rapid change was determined long ago. That publicized agreement is what set in motion the fossil fuels sponsored campaign of FUD continuing from years ago...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

If Aerosols have had no effect why do we have Ozone holes in both the north and southern pole , why are more people getting Skin Cancers in places where it was not herd of 60yrs ago.
Martin i'm on your side just using your post to point out some things mate

---

Sorry mate do some more research there is a well known reason why , give you a clue look at the date it happened and what events also happened at that time but in another part of the world you may also look at what keeps your area of the world from being frozen even today mmm the Gulf Stream maybe . Study "Weather" . I have already stated some of it in other posts Also I did not say that the Thames Froze over that was another user .

1815 eruption of Tambora the effects of which in the UK admirably depicted in
Constables paintings.

The gulf stream seems to be a bit of a bone of contention amongst scientists.
None can agree exactly on what effect the UK would experience if this stream
was to disappear. Some say we might freeze, others say we would experience a
mean average drop in temperatures of about 5 degs C. I've even come across
one reference to the UK actually experiencing mean average increases in
temperature if the Gulf stream was to disappear.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

The UK would see a drop in average annual temperature, of that there is little doubt. The debate is by how much. Five degrees C might not sound much, but it would reduce the number of "frost free" days by between 10 and 30, or even more. It could mean that we would be barely above freezing from mid November until mid March, white Christmases would be the norm (either snow or frost). Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom subtract 5 from all the temperatures...

Now if it were a ten degree drop that would be a really bad move, basically 5 to 6 months of frost, and no "real" summer...

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

The UK would see a drop in average annual temperature, of that there is little doubt. The debate is by how much. Five degrees C might not sound much, but it would reduce the number of "frost free" days by between 10 and 30, or even more. It could mean that we would be barely above freezing from mid November until mid March, white Christmases would be the norm (either snow or frost). Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom subtract 5 from all the temperatures...

Now if it were a ten degree drop that would be a really bad move, basically 5 to 6 months of frost, and no "real" summer...

A lot of the above, Rob, would also depend on what effect if any the change in
the Gulf stream would have on the Jet Stream. The jet stream affects the
British weather quite significantly and following it's predicted course can
tell you quite a bit about forthcoming weather and temperatures in our region.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

The Jet stream does for weather what the Gulf Stream does for climate. Changes in the jet stream's location affect our weather on a day to day basis, but the Gulf Stream works on our climate, the impact probably wouldn't be felt in the first year or so, but gradually the temperatures would drop and then stabilise at a lower normal range (still being pertubated by the jet stream). Then of course we have the way the North Atlantic bulk temperature affects the jet stream, which is real uncharted territory, some reason that it would move in such a way as to give more violent weather patterns (extremes of wind, rain etc.) while other argue that it would move to produce a more stable, if colder pattern.
Meanwhile the tropics would see an increase in bulk ocean temperatures....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Sorry mate do some more research there is a well known reason why , give you a clue look at the date it happened and what events also happened at that time but in another part of the world you may also look at what keeps your area of the world from being frozen even today mmm the Gulf Stream maybe . Study "Weather" . I have already stated some of it in other posts Also I did not say that the Thames Froze over that was another user .

1815 eruption of Tambora the effects of which in the UK admirably depicted in
Constables paintings.

The gulf stream seems to be a bit of a bone of contention amongst scientists.
None can agree exactly on what effect the UK would experience if this stream
was to disappear. Some say we might freeze, others say we would experience a
mean average drop in temperatures of about 5 degs C. I've even come across
one reference to the UK actually experiencing mean average increases in
temperature if the Gulf stream was to disappear.

And Krakatoa and there was a period of Volcanic eruptions in Indonesia where every year 1 or two big volcanic eruptions occurred . Then you won't hear much about this one but the Kori's (aboriginals) used to start bush fires and there burned till it rained . Imagine how much carbon was relised if just harf the stae I lived in went up in smoke in 6 months .England can fit in my state 5 times and I live in New south wales not the biggest state . The kori's where doing this for thousands of years it has been said it is the reason the mega animals died off (marsupials) big bloody wombats the size of lions and other creatures

---

The Jet stream does for weather what the Gulf Stream does for climate. Changes in the jet stream's location affect our weather on a day to day basis, but the Gulf Stream works on our climate, the impact ...

And it amazes me how we are blithely hell bent on radically forcing change to both of them when indeed we cannot be sure of all the short term consequences let alone all the long term consequences.

However, we are sure enough to know that any change is not good for our present ways of life, worldwide. All a very costly change...

Meanwhile, we have long ago worked out accurately the general detail of what to expect. Now, we have unbelievable FUD about the fine detail and impossible requirements for ever finer detail as we trash our world further...


Looks like the Denialists will have our world damned.

All on our only world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

There's been a good and lively debate recently on UK radio that included a wry comment about the state of discussion about Climate Change in the USA media. The English poet John Milton suggested that restricting speech was not necessary because "in a free and open encounter," truth would prevail [see Marketplace of ideas].

However... Various radical Right-wing chat show hosts promote such widespread vehemently anti-Global-Warming rhetoric that decades of good clear Science and observation are just completely smothered and ignored.


Is our planet as much victim to opportunistic political FUD and ignorance as much as to our crass commercialism in pollution?

Also is there a deliberate ostrich-head-in-sand see-nothing approach as noted on these threads where hard direct evidence and observation and science is repeatedly ignorantly ignored by the self professed Denialists? Really, it can't be happening?!


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Want to know how to tell if you are a denier?

Ask a simple question. Have you been able to rule out all other causes? If they answer yes they are a denier! They deny the uncertainty principle.

So ask a fan-boy if there is any possibility that man isn't responsible for warming ...

So ask a BS-boy if there is any possibility that man is responsible for warming ...

The fan-boys and BS-boys are into politics and are anti-solution. Why? A solution puts them out of business.

---

Since more people now agree, right or wrong, that humans are the biggest contributors to climate change it shouldn't be that hard to figure out the best solution is to significantly cut the human population. Since we generally live only 70 to 80 years we could achieve a substantial reduction in population in just 100 years. I have done my part as I did not father any children.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Since more people now agree, right or wrong, that humans are the biggest contributors to climate change it shouldn't be that hard to figure out the best solution is to significantly cut the human population. Since we generally live only 70 to 80 years we could achieve a substantial reduction in population in just 100 years. I have done my part as I did not father any children.

Well Bob, it goes without saying that soon someone's going to have to start the
ball rolling regarding the over-population of this planet. One thing for certain,
regardless of global warming, we will eventually experience within the next 100
years or may be sooner a global cooling phase. If this phase is anything like
the last one (the mini-ice-age)then with the current level of population we
in the Northern Hemisphere are going to have serious problems in feeding our
populations. As it stands not one of our Governments has given this the slightest
thought surely they know that after a spell of global warming, that as sure as eggs
are eggs, global cooling WILL follow....and it will. Global cooling will have
the potential to reek havoc on a scale never to be witnessed under the stresses
experienced via those coming from global warming.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Since more people now agree, right or wrong, that humans are the biggest contributors to climate change it shouldn't be that hard to figure out the best solution is to significantly cut the human population. ...

'Hopefully', better education and better living will 'naturally' lead to a leveling off or even a reduction in population. Culture and religion have an important part to play to help (or hinder) that...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Meanwhile:

Ed Davey attacks 'blinkered' climate change sceptics

Mr Davey says climate change is being turned into a political football.

In a draft of his speech, he says: "Of course there will always be uncertainties within climate science and the need for research to continue.

"But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups.

"This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing.

"This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness.

"This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided.

"By selectively misreading the evidence, they seek to suggest that climate change has stopped so we can all relax and burn all the dirty fuel we want without a care.

"Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit, in the face of all the evidence, against overwhelming odds."


And yet another small example of the continuing spate of ever more extreme weather?

Thousands flee as central Europe flood waters rise

... In Austria, the meteorological service said two months of rain had fallen in just two days. ...


No one singular weather event is 'proof' of anything. However, there does look to be an ever more regular trend of extreme events that can be expected from an increased moisture load in our atmosphere and from disrupted weather patterns compared to what we have become used to as 'normal' over the past centuries.


Really, all this is not happening?!

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Or it could mean that since we are occupying a greater percentage of of earth's land mass and thus living in places that we might previously have avoided coupled with worldwide instantaneous news coverage it just seems like there is more bad weather than before.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Full speech

The power of funded lobbying is scarily amazing:

... Just 3% question man’s contribution. ...


We have an overwhelming consensus for something that is overwhelmingly obvious. And yet the media promote equal relevance to a minority farcical view for the sake of sensationalism and advertising revenue?

How is it that Fossil Fuels and corruption can so trash our planet for everyone?

Only on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

American greed that's how just look at what they are doing with Fracking coal ???????

---