Arctic freezes early, IPCC under fire


Recommended Posts

Oopsie....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a ?pause? in global warming since 1997.

The original predictions led to billions being invested in green measures to combat the effects of climate change.

The change in the predictions has led to UN's climate change's body holding a crisis meeting, and the the IPCC was due to report on the situation in October. A pre-summit meeting will be held later this month.

But leaked documents show that governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years ? as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

The extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 year, a total of 0.8C, is down to human greenhouse gas emissions are key issues.

The IPCC says it is ?95 per cent confident? that global warming has been caused by humans - up from 90 per cent in 2007 ? according to the draft report.

However, US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, ?uncertainty is getting bigger? within the academic community.

Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: 'We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.?

The IPCC is said to maintain that their climate change models suggest a pause of 15 years can be expected. Other experts agree that natural cycles cannot explain all of the recorded warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we just keep spending hundreds of $billions (or $trillions) on what could be a faulty premise instead of putting it where it might do actual good?

You might not be old enough to remember when many of these same people had the world convinced an ice age was coming, but I certainly am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting fed up with people on Facebook and such posting pictures of the Ice Caps in Winter, and then a photo of the Ice Caps 10 years later, but in Summer with them melting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those of us questioning the "science" about the Global Warming/Climate Change farce are the nutter, yet SCIENCE has proven us to be right all along, wonder what the new scare will be 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the Pro Scientists and Politicians are going to claim all these Carbon reduction laws have had an incredible effect on the problem and are helping to resolving the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Enough said.

 

Proof it was all a big conspiracy is all I see, I remember the reactions of those "scientists" to anyone questioning them, and yet they were all lying the whole time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should worry more about how we are polluting this planet, but instead they worry about CO2 emission only. Plants and trees breath CO2 ...  Of course reducing emissions from cars and industries is still a plus

 

But all the chemicals,radiation and oil we have in the ocean and lakes, that's what makes me worried the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that rejected Global Warming in General? Because I reject "Man-Made" Global Warming, not Global Warming completely.

Man-made global warming. 

 

Back in 1989 I visited the German Climate Computing Centre in Hamburg with school. Then already the climate scientists had calculated that the warming climate since the 1950s was more than likely man-made. Ever since better computer hardware and more refined simulations have but confirmed it - man-made global warming is a fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 man-made global warming is a fact.

 

That's the beauty of Science. Nothing is a fact, they're just theories, our best guess at the time with the evidence at hand, a single piece of additional evidence can destroy an entire accepted theory in an instant. We are still technically in an Ice Age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter what your views on climate change are the fact we are polluting less is a positive thing.

Yes, it is. The problem nowadays is that in other countries pollution is on the increase - look at the People's Republic of China or India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. The problem nowadays is that in other countries pollution is on the increase - look at the People's Republic of China or India.

 

Blame the same people that lied about it from the get go, they also allowed the waivers to international regulations for those countries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing causing "global warming" is all this heated debate!

 

And your Titans create cyclones of such an extremely low air pressure that despite their certain electrical energy consumption radiated as heat there's a net loss of thermal energy in the near vicinity :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

go watch the video "The great global warming swindle" it's all about money taxpayer money going to socalled scientists who claim their studying climate change 

 

I don't disagree with climate change I just don't accept it's us causing it it's been shown that the earth goes through warming and cooling events globally it's how the earth stabilises itself 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. The problem nowadays is that in other countries pollution is on the increase - look at the People's Republic of China or India.

 

 

We like to think we're polluting less in actual fact we haven't stopped we just send it to other countries to deal with 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One report?which doesn't even come to a definitive conclusion?is not enough to dismiss anthropogenic climate change out of hand, especially not when we're talking about a leaked report that hasn't even been finalised. Even if you reject the notion of global warming you cannot think it is a good idea to pollute the environment for short-term economic gain and that is really what we're talking about here. Chopping down the rainforests and burning fossil fuels is not contributing to the long-term survival of the human race but is in fact working against it. And the environment isn't the only issue with regards to sustainability, as fresh water supplies running incredibly low in many areas (Australia, West America, the Middle East, Southern Europe) and there are shortages of many precious metals, minerals and gases (notably helium).

 

The real issue here is that many people believe that economic gain comes before all else and at the moment environmental concerns are getting in the way of making more profit. That's what this is really all about and it's just nothing something I can relate to. Our future as a species shouldn't be dependent upon corporations with vested interests gambling that climate change isn't anthropogenic or simply ignoring it regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not you "believe in" climate change, the actual fact is that there are a number of man-made pollutants which affect the environment. You can debate whether we know clearly what that affect is, but "climate change skeptics" have absolutely zero evidence for the claim that humans have no affect at all on the environment. So with that in mind, is it not wise to eliminate the emission of such pollutants rather than walking ignorantly into a situation with potentially catastrophic consequences?

 

If science is wrong and we stop polluting but it turns out that man-made pollutants aren't destroying life on this planet, then the worst that has happened is that we've wrongly invested our economy into reducing pollution, rather than investing it into a slightly higher (than our already quite high) quality of life.

If science is correct and we ignore all the warnings and don't stop polluting, then the worst that can happen within just a couple generations is 2m sea-level rise will result in cities populated by hundreds of millions become uninhabitable, mass species extinction from habitat destruction, increasing cost of accessing food and clean water, increasing cost of healthcare, increasing human conflict over dwindling resources, and so on.

 

How foolish are we not to insure ourselves against this?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not you "believe in" climate change, the actual fact is that there are a number of man-made pollutants which affect the environment. You can debate whether we know clearly what that affect is, but "climate change skeptics" have absolutely zero evidence for the claim that humans have no affect at all on the environment. So with that in mind, is it not wise to eliminate the emission of such pollutants rather than walking ignorantly into a situation with potentially catastrophic consequences?

 

If science is wrong and we stop polluting but it turns out that man-made pollutants aren't destroying life on this planet, then the worst that has happened is that we've wrongly invested our economy into reducing pollution, rather than investing it into a slightly higher (than our already quite high) quality of life.

If science is correct and we ignore all the warnings and don't stop polluting, then the worst that can happen within just a couple generations is 2m sea-level rise will result in cities populated by hundreds of millions become uninhabitable, mass species extinction from habitat destruction, increasing cost of accessing food and clean water, increasing cost of healthcare, increasing human conflict over dwindling resources, and so on.

 

How foolish are we not to insure ourselves against this?

Regardless of the objective, it makes sense to look into ways of generating energy that do not create pollutants, since most of these are fossil fuels. Having a renewable energy source makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The climate is always changing, whether it be because of man-made global warming or something else (it is in fact many factors), you still need to plan and adapt to those changes.

 

Climate Change != Global Warming, but is one of the many contributors to the changing climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the repercussion of Politicians (or whoever) lining their gold-rimmed, silk pant pockets is an environment with less toxic emissions and/or vulture-like resource abuse then I'm completely fine with this. One can argue the validity of Global Warming, but if you think treating the environment like we do is perfectly fine for the Planet, and our future within it, then you're an idiot.

 

I'll gladly make a lot of people rich if that helps the Planet, and if you ask me, they deserve it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.