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

[boomerangutang]

Methane; roughly 8 times more effective a 'greenhouse gas' than CO2.

methane, as a gas, rises from ground and from places underwater where it was somewhat stable. It does so when temperatures rise a small amount. Scientists studying tundra in the Arctic region are noticing methane releases at significant higher amounts than just a few years ago.

"Climate change ....like it has never done that on this planet before" ....Of course no scientist, nor even a Creationist numbskull is asserting that. Humans are a relatively frail species, even with our man-made protection (clothes, shelter, a/c, etc) against hot and cold. There are many species which are much hardier than us. The GW/Climate change debate is 98% about our one species. Even so, I don't think anyone is claiming humans are going to disappear as a species anytime soon. The debate, re; consequences, revolves mostly around the impact of cities being drowned and troubles with crops, as well as infestations/disease, some of which we may not be aware of yet.

I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.

Google Rapanui (Easter Island) or 'Hong Kong's Walled City' ...if you want a glimpse of two scenarios of the near future.

[RickBradford]

Even so, I don't think anyone is claiming humans are going to disappear as a species anytime soon.

Oh, yeah?

'We’re facing a mass extinction event,' claims Bob Geldof (October 7, 2013)

Live Aid founder and activist Bob Geldof has warned that the human race may be extinct within 15 years because of climate change.

“The next war will not be a World War I or a World War II, it will be the end,” he said. “We may not get to 2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently.”

Now, you may say that Geldof is a posturing, ignorant, narcissistic ninny, but despite that, his remarks were published, in all seriousness, round the globe by supposedly reputable news outlets.

I sometimes wonder whether Green climate change alarmists ever ask themselves: "Do I really agree with a movement that encourages this kind of statement? Is this the best way to present our position? Aren't we perhaps overdoing it slightly?"

Nah. Extreme Greens never question The Cause, or actions taken on its behalf, however silly or dishonest.

[thaibeachlovers]

Methane; roughly 8 times more effective a 'greenhouse gas' than CO2.

methane, as a gas, rises from ground and from places underwater where it was somewhat stable. It does so when temperatures rise a small amount. Scientists studying tundra in the Arctic region are noticing methane releases at significant higher amounts than just a few years ago.

"Climate change ....like it has never done that on this planet before" ....Of course no scientist, nor even a Creationist numbskull is asserting that. Humans are a relatively frail species, even with our man-made protection (clothes, shelter, a/c, etc) against hot and cold. There are many species which are much hardier than us. The GW/Climate change debate is 98% about our one species. Even so, I don't think anyone is claiming humans are going to disappear as a species anytime soon. The debate, re; consequences, revolves mostly around the impact of cities being drowned and troubles with crops, as well as infestations/disease, some of which we may not be aware of yet.

I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.

Google Rapanui (Easter Island) or 'Hong Kong's Walled City' ...if you want a glimpse of two scenarios of the near future.

<I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.>

I concur.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

This topic is starting to stray from the subject of the OP.

It will be more strictly moderated, so please stay on-topic.

[isawasnake]

On the contrary to some of the above statements, I think there are a lot of "Green" people out there who don't care what the hell we do with the environment either way. I mean, sure - it would be nice to be pro environment to some extent for them, but they really could not care less. You don't have to be "green" to argue that humans are affecting the climate, you just have to have a head on top of your shoulders.

But, these same "greenies" would like the general public to pull their collective heads out. I think we can all agree that when the public understands and knows the truth about something, they are then able to make wise and intelligent decisions. I don't know how any person in the world can go to the NASA website, know their reputation and accomplishments, read what they say about climate change, and come away with the conclusions they do. I guess Sean Hannity is a more reliable source.

For the uninitiated

http://climate.nasa.gov/

[RickBradford]

I don't know how any person in the world can go to the NASA website, know their reputation and accomplishments, read what they say about climate change, and come away with the conclusions they do.

Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman of NASA's Planetary Science Division co-authored a paper in 2011 entitled: "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis"

The content of the paper was summarised in the British press thus:

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA

When they see what a mess we've made of our planet, aliens may be forced to take drastic action. It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

My conclusion from this is that we shouldn't blindly accept everything just because it comes from 'authority'; we should try to think for ourselves.

As the great Richard Feynman said: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart he was who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

[canman]

An interesting article here about the "pause" in global warming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

Graphic below from the article

[canman]

Methane; roughly 8 times more effective a 'greenhouse gas' than CO2.

methane, as a gas, rises from ground and from places underwater where it was somewhat stable. It does so when temperatures rise a small amount. Scientists studying tundra in the Arctic region are noticing methane releases at significant higher amounts than just a few years ago.

"Climate change ....like it has never done that on this planet before" ....Of course no scientist, nor even a Creationist numbskull is asserting that. Humans are a relatively frail species, even with our man-made protection (clothes, shelter, a/c, etc) against hot and cold. There are many species which are much hardier than us. The GW/Climate change debate is 98% about our one species. Even so, I don't think anyone is claiming humans are going to disappear as a species anytime soon. The debate, re; consequences, revolves mostly around the impact of cities being drowned and troubles with crops, as well as infestations/disease, some of which we may not be aware of yet.

I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.

Google Rapanui (Easter Island) or 'Hong Kong's Walled City' ...if you want a glimpse of two scenarios of the near future.

<I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.>

I concur.

Who do you suggest we kill first?

[RickBradford]

Today is Ben Santer's 17th anniversary.

A few years back, Santer, an IPCC stalwart who works at Lawrence Livermore, dismissed the measured slowdown in global warming, and said that we couldn't reliably interpret trends in data from a period of less than 17 years.

“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

Well, the satellite temperature figures are in, and the slope for the past 17 years is -- zero. (Actually, it's marginally under zero -- i.e. slight cooling). That's since November 1996.

Condemned, as they say, out of his own mouth.

But the Left/Green movement never gives up, and I expect them to move the goalposts yet again and change the required period to 25 years, or 30 years or until the day after they retire on full pension.

[cooked]

Repeat after me: CO2 levels have been steadily rising, in prehistory due to slash and burn agriculture, during the middle ages due to the making of charcoal for the manufacture of steel, the Industrial revolution really caused a sharp rise in the production of CO2, and things are getting worse. The oceans have been absorbing the CO2 for millennia and are slowly losing their capacity for absorbing more.

Increased CO2 = warming, raising of sea level and the rest.

I realise that some people refuse to accept basic facts that don't fit in with their preconceived ideas but incessantly falling back on conspiracy theories and so on is being in a state of denial, grasping at straws to support their 'theories'.

I don't think that a human population of one milliard or so would be ideal, I think more in terms of hundreds of thousands. The planet will be ok as soon as it gets rid of humans.

Sorry, one attachment too many.

[RickBradford]

^^

The 'basic fact' is that the global mean temperature, as measured by the satellites sent up to perform this task, show zero warming in the past 17 years.

Here on Planet Earth, that hardly corresponds to a 'conspiracy theory','being in denial', or 'grasping at straws'.

It is scientific data, which you could easily check for yourself.

[thaibeachlovers]

Methane; roughly 8 times more effective a 'greenhouse gas' than CO2.

methane, as a gas, rises from ground and from places underwater where it was somewhat stable. It does so when temperatures rise a small amount. Scientists studying tundra in the Arctic region are noticing methane releases at significant higher amounts than just a few years ago.

"Climate change ....like it has never done that on this planet before" ....Of course no scientist, nor even a Creationist numbskull is asserting that. Humans are a relatively frail species, even with our man-made protection (clothes, shelter, a/c, etc) against hot and cold. There are many species which are much hardier than us. The GW/Climate change debate is 98% about our one species. Even so, I don't think anyone is claiming humans are going to disappear as a species anytime soon. The debate, re; consequences, revolves mostly around the impact of cities being drowned and troubles with crops, as well as infestations/disease, some of which we may not be aware of yet.

I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.

Google Rapanui (Easter Island) or 'Hong Kong's Walled City' ...if you want a glimpse of two scenarios of the near future.

<I personally don't have a big problem with a lessening human population. The planet already has about 8 times more people than its carrying capacity. Let the cycles continue.>

I concur.

Who do you suggest we kill first?

You obviously can't read, or is it comprehension that you have a problem with? The "cycles" or Gaia, will kill, not me. Besides, humans are very good at killing each other.

The main thing is to stop people over reproducing, so that the population decreases gradually, rather in a cataclysmic event.

[RickBradford]

The main thing is to stop people over reproducing, so that the population decreases gradually, rather in a cataclysmic event.

And the best way to do that is to encourage development of poor nations, as the statistics are quite clear in that rich countries have dramatically lower birth rates and population growth rates than poor ones.

And the fundamental requirement for that development is widespread cheap electricity and energy, which right now means fossil fuels.

Pressure from Big Green to curb new fossil fuel power plants in poor countries stifles development and hence contributes directly to the over-population problem. This in turn leads to more environmental degradation.

Green thinking at its best.

[thaibeachlovers]

The main thing is to stop people over reproducing, so that the population decreases gradually, rather in a cataclysmic event.

And the best way to do that is to encourage development of poor nations, as the statistics are quite clear in that rich countries have dramatically lower birth rates and population growth rates than poor ones.

And the fundamental requirement for that development is widespread cheap electricity and energy, which right now means fossil fuels.

Pressure from Big Green to curb new fossil fuel power plants in poor countries stifles development and hence contributes directly to the over-population problem. This in turn leads to more environmental degradation.

Green thinking at its best.

Actually, I'd like to see nuclear power ( which would solve the carbon problem ) used far more universally. However, the greenies don't want nuclear. Can't have it both ways, but they think they can, which is why I disregard most of their rants.

[cooked]

^^

The 'basic fact' is that the global mean temperature, as measured by the satellites sent up to perform this task, show zero warming in the past 17 years.

Here on Planet Earth, that hardly corresponds to a 'conspiracy theory','being in denial', or 'grasping at straws'.

It is scientific data, which you could easily check for yourself.

You ever looked at a graph of how the dollar goes up and down against the Thai Baht? The fact that it loses value for a month or so doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. 17 years? We are talking about hundreds and thousands of years as a time period. I have seen the glaciers melting in the Alps over a period of 40 years. The Greenland ice sheet is diminishing, Antarctic ice is threatening to do something very naughty at present. I know all about this 'no change in 17 years' stuff, and I don't deny it, but without knowing what was measured, and how, it is still a very small piece of information in a huge pool of evidence that indicates the contrary.

[FiftyTwo]

^^

The 'basic fact' is that the global mean temperature, as measured by the satellites sent up to perform this task, show zero warming in the past 17 years.

Here on Planet Earth, that hardly corresponds to a 'conspiracy theory','being in denial', or 'grasping at straws'.

It is scientific data, which you could easily check for yourself.

You ever looked at a graph of how the dollar goes up and down against the Thai Baht? The fact that it loses value for a month or so doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. 17 years? We are talking about hundreds and thousands of years as a time period. I have seen the glaciers melting in the Alps over a period of 40 years. The Greenland ice sheet is diminishing, Antarctic ice is threatening to do something very naughty at present. I know all about this 'no change in 17 years' stuff, and I don't deny it, but without knowing what was measured, and how, it is still a very small piece of information in a huge pool of evidence that indicates the contrary.

There isn't all that much historical data on glaciers.

Until about 20 years ago, they were too hard to get to, and too hard to measure, and not many were interested.

[cooked]

^^

The 'basic fact' is that the global mean temperature, as measured by the satellites sent up to perform this task, show zero warming in the past 17 years.

Here on Planet Earth, that hardly corresponds to a 'conspiracy theory','being in denial', or 'grasping at straws'.

It is scientific data, which you could easily check for yourself.

You ever looked at a graph of how the dollar goes up and down against the Thai Baht? The fact that it loses value for a month or so doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. 17 years? We are talking about hundreds and thousands of years as a time period. I have seen the glaciers melting in the Alps over a period of 40 years. The Greenland ice sheet is diminishing, Antarctic ice is threatening to do something very naughty at present. I know all about this 'no change in 17 years' stuff, and I don't deny it, but without knowing what was measured, and how, it is still a very small piece of information in a huge pool of evidence that indicates the contrary.

There isn't all that much historical data on glaciers.

Until about 20 years ago, they were too hard to get to, and too hard to measure, and not many were interested.

I beg your pardon? They are easily accessible in Switzerland, admittedly the pictures that were painted do offer some evidence. There are means of measuring where glaciers were previously (I learnt this stuff in Geography classes at the age of 15). Why do you think that scientists have been investigating core samples of Antarctic and Greenland ice for a long time now? The records concerning ice ages etc go back over 800 000 years.

[RickBradford]

@cooked

I know all about this 'no change in 17 years' stuff, and I don't deny it, but without knowing what was measured, and how, it is still a very small piece of information in a huge pool of evidence that indicates the contrary.

You do know what was measured and how -- it was in my post. What was measured was the global mean temperature and how it was measured was by a satellite system designed to carry out this measurement.

This is important because the UN scientists predicting dangerous warming said this could not happen if their theories were correct. More specifically, it means that the computer models on which the supposed climate disaster is being predicted are wrong. All of them. The UN's IPCC examined 73 different models of how the scientists claimed that the world warmed in response to extra CO2. They all predicted significant warming.

As Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), said:

"I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases. All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world."

If the models are this far off, they have no predictive ability whatever, and so the future predicted catastrophe is cancelled forthwith.

"October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. “And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history."

If you can't see the significance of these results, then the fault does not lie with the data.

[cooked]

@cooked

I know all about this 'no change in 17 years' stuff, and I don't deny it, but without knowing what was measured, and how, it is still a very small piece of information in a huge pool of evidence that indicates the contrary.

You do know what was measured and how -- it was in my post. What was measured was the global mean temperature and how it was measured was by a satellite system designed to carry out this measurement.

This is important because the UN scientists predicting dangerous warming said this could not happen if their theories were correct. More specifically, it means that the computer models on which the supposed climate disaster is being predicted are wrong. All of them. The UN's IPCC examined 73 different models of how the scientists claimed that the world warmed in response to extra CO2. They all predicted significant warming.

As Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), said:

"I compared the models with observations in the key area the tropics where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases. All 73 models predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world."

If the models are this far off, they have no predictive ability whatever, and so the future predicted catastrophe is cancelled forthwith.

"October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero, agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institutes Center for the Study of Science. And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history."

If you can't see the significance of these results, then the fault does not lie with the data.

Ah, yes, right, I see it differently now, how silly of me.

[francescoassisi]

Interesting.....

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateChangeFacts.html

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateModel.pdf

[MJP]

Interesting.....

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateChangeFacts.html

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateModel.pdf

Blimey, Rick's good at maths!

[cooked]

Interesting.....

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateChangeFacts.html

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateModel.pdf

Blimey, Rick's good at maths!

Any more denialists on this topic should be forced to assure us that they have both read (without moving their lips) and understood at least 90% of these articles, before we take them seriously.

[canuckamuck]

Goes both ways

[MJP]

Interesting.....

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateChangeFacts.html

http://rickbradford.co.uk/ClimateModel.pdf

Blimey, Rick's good at maths!

Any more denialists on this topic should be forced to assure us that they have both read (without moving their lips) and understood at least 90% of these articles, before we take them seriously.

I agree with this. It's why I'm a Don'tknow'er

The more you learn the more you understand you don't know anything at all.

[francescoassisi]

How are you on quantum physics, relativity etc.? In fact we don't have to understand all of it as lay people. But we can look at the basics and the who's how's and where's of the critics.......and in the end they just don't add up.As lay people we often have to look at the nature of the source to get an idea of the likelihood of it's veracity (e.g. Daily Mail?)...or try the journal that publishes the research. Quality scientific journals are usually reluctant to publish research with flawed methodology etc.

Those who deny climate change don't have to be stupid....even clever people get it wrong and personality, stubbornness and even old age can prevent them from concurring in the face of increasing evidence......of course they often find opposing a theory can be quite lucrative; either through vested interests or personal career enhancement....e.g. David Ike.

[francescoassisi]

I can't see also why anyone would base their argument on a set of postulates about one aspect of climate change over a 17 or 19 year period,taken in isolation, which completely ignores other events and processes currently taking place around the planet.

Surely taking one isolated set of observations cannot be regarded as proof in anyone's book especially of such a vast and point term process.

[RickBradford]

I can't see also why anyone would base their argument on a set of postulates about one aspect of climate change over a 17 or 19 year period,taken in isolation,

It was the UN's IPCC (in the person of Ben Santer, quoted previously) which chose the 17-year period as the acid test for global warming, not the skeptics. The 17 years has come and gone, and the alarmist predictions have flopped. Their game, their rules, and they lost.

which completely ignores other events and processes currently taking place around the planet.

The scare has always been about the warming, and only the warming. If there is no warming, you can cancel all the consequences that are supposed to flow from that: sea level rise, extreme weather, glacier retreat, biodiversity loss and so on. The warming has to come first for the rest to make any kind of sense.

Surely taking one isolated set of observations cannot be regarded as proof in anyone's book especially of such a vast and point term process.

Skeptics have nothing to prove (more specifically, we believe in the null hypothesis). The alarmists have something to prove, i.e. that they are right when they claim that something terrible is going to happen if mankind does not mend its ways.

Carl Sagan used to say that: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Judged by that standard, the alarmists have completely failed to make their case, after 30 years of trying, and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered.

[wilcopops]

I can't see also why anyone would base their argument on a set of postulates about one aspect of climate change over a 17 or 19 year period,taken in isolation,

It was the UN's IPCC (in the person of Ben Santer, quoted previously) which chose the 17-year period as the acid test for global warming, not the skeptics. The 17 years has come and gone, and the alarmist predictions have flopped. Their game, their rules, and they lost.

which completely ignores other events and processes currently taking place around the planet.

The scare has always been about the warming, and only the warming. If there is no warming, you can cancel all the consequences that are supposed to flow from that: sea level rise, extreme weather, glacier retreat, biodiversity loss and so on. The warming has to come first for the rest to make any kind of sense.

Surely taking one isolated set of observations cannot be regarded as proof in anyone's book especially of such a vast and point term process.

Skeptics have nothing to prove (more specifically, we believe in the null hypothesis). The alarmists have something to prove, i.e. that they are right when they claim that something terrible is going to happen if mankind does not mend its ways.

Carl Sagan used to say that: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Judged by that standard, the alarmists have completely failed to make their case, after 30 years of trying, and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered.

Climate deniers are not "skeptics".

[cooked]

I can't see also why anyone would base their argument on a set of postulates about one aspect of climate change over a 17 or 19 year period,taken in isolation,

It was the UN's IPCC (in the person of Ben Santer, quoted previously) which chose the 17-year period as the acid test for global warming, not the skeptics. The 17 years has come and gone, and the alarmist predictions have flopped. Their game, their rules, and they lost.

which completely ignores other events and processes currently taking place around the planet.

The scare has always been about the warming, and only the warming. If there is no warming, you can cancel all the consequences that are supposed to flow from that: sea level rise, extreme weather, glacier retreat, biodiversity loss and so on. The warming has to come first for the rest to make any kind of sense.

Surely taking one isolated set of observations cannot be regarded as proof in anyone's book especially of such a vast and point term process.

Skeptics have nothing to prove (more specifically, we believe in the null hypothesis). The alarmists have something to prove, i.e. that they are right when they claim that something terrible is going to happen if mankind does not mend its ways.

Carl Sagan used to say that: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Judged by that standard, the alarmists have completely failed to make their case, after 30 years of trying, and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered.

Where does this concept of 'alarmists' come from? These are 99% of peer reviews that have seriously studied the evidence and didn't atart running around in circles with their hands clasped over their heads. There are very few sceptics in the scientific community.

I remember one folks hero, the guy that decided that measles immunisations caused autism, he later had to admit that his claims were ungrounded. He did make a lot of money out of his actions though, and quite a few children dies as a result.

There doesn't seem to be much point to me in getting all upset about this stuff, whether it happens or not there is nothing we can do about it, apart from building vast underground self sufficient communities that would emerge after a few thousand years, blinking, into the brave new world. No amount of collecting old bottles is going to change things much in the long term.

The scare is not about, and only about, warming, but about climate change, mostly for the worse.

[RickBradford]

Where does this concept of 'alarmists' come from?

Where to start?

* With the claim from a NASA scientist that heightened CO2 emissions make an alien invasion of Earth more likely?

* That 100 million people will die from climate change in the next 18 years (DARA) or that

* climate change will cause the human race to go extinct within the next 17 years (orig. Bob Geldof, published worldwide in the media), or that

* "over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012",

* Global warming is causing earthquakes and giant landslides, and could bring about an age of “geological havoc” including “volcano storms” and tsunamis,

* That there will be 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 (UN)

* That climate change causes: AIDS, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, ....(snip 10 pages) ... winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolverines vanish, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, women cheat on vacation, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, Yellow fever, zebra mussel threat, zoonotic diseases.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Now, maybe my village has been lucky, we seem to have avoided this apocalypse (though I can't find the cat), nor can I find anyone in the world who has suffered from the above disasters.

So I'm forced to conclude that here in the real world, these claims have been shown to be absurd, and hence fall under the head of alarmism.