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

[boomerangutang]

Lots of talk of CO2, and CO2 is a factor. Yet methane is also part of the equation. Methane (if memory serves) has 8 times more of a greenhouse gas effect than CO2. There is methane in large pockets under the sea, and it shows up other places. Notably, it bubbles up from Arctic tundra and lakes - now, at an increasing rate because of warming. Whether the methane under the sea will bubble up considerably more than it has historically is debatable, but an interesting facet nevertheless. If warming persists, incremental releases of methane are expected - so it's a self-accelerating phenomena.

[RickBradford]

From Nature magazine:

Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years.

-----

Most of Earth’s gas hydrates .....will barely be affected by warming over even 10^3 [1,000 ]yr.

[Thaddeus]

Whether the methane under the sea will bubble up considerably more than it has historically is debatable, but an interesting facet nevertheless.

You know that another name for methane is Marsh Gas.

edit/spell

[boomerangutang]

Whether the methane under the sea will bubble up considerably more than it has historically is debatable, but an interesting facet nevertheless.

You know that another name for methane is Marsh Gas.

I thought that was the name for the album Johnny Rotten was going to release before his untimely demise.

[lovetotravel]

anybody who has been to glaciers recently knows the earth is warming. Just a simple fact. It's hard to argue part of the reason is our involvement.

Sure, it is probably part of a normal cycle, but humans are responsible for a part of this. Just look at the negative impact we have had on our planet. It is easy to see.

Chasing Ice is a great documentary. Everybody should watch it.

[francescoassisi]

Some people seem to think that proponents of climate change theory are unaware of previous cycles of change on the planet. This is obviously a ridiculous assumption. What these posters seem unaware of and the researchers bare very aware of is that the current changes are significantly different enough from any previous events to warrant a different interpretation.....I.e. That they are man made.

[The Deerhunter]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I remember reading an article 20 years ago about this, and another one that said that Russia has been preparing for a return of an ice-age of some sort for decades.

[Diablo Bob]

anybody who has been to glaciers recently knows the earth is warming. Just a simple fact. It's hard to argue part of the reason is our involvement.

Sure, it is probably part of a normal cycle, but humans are responsible for a part of this. Just look at the negative impact we have had on our planet. It is easy to see.

Chasing Ice is a great documentary. Everybody should watch it.

I don't know if it is the CO2, methane, a natural cyclic change or El Nino, blah, blah, blah that is resonsible.

The fact remains, that glaciers that I climbed in the early 70's in the Sierra Nevada range in Central California are no longer there! Gone..........

Pico de Orizaba in Mexico, not gone, but probably 1/4 the size of the 70's.

Sad, they were truley beautifull.

[The Deerhunter]

Who really has more lobbying power and incentive. Koch, Exxon et al. I would say oil companies that also provide major political support to politicians lining up against environmental concerns.

I would prefer to listen the the real scientist that have less skin in the game in these issues. They are out there. If you are looking to support your agenda or belief you will probably miss them.

Are you suggesting that vested interests influence these things? Well so do the anti-GW brigade who point out that all the scientists on the GW gravey train rely on "The sky is falling" headlines to keep those research grants coming in to keep them all in their cushy jobs.

[wilcopops]

THere is no doubt whatsoever that companies like Exxon and those with a vested interest in gainsaying Climate Change have spent fortunes on "research" and publicity to try and smear the CC message. A quick search will throw up a load of stuff they have promulgated - and the sad thing it is carefully designed for the more naive media and less critical to swallow.

If you trace any of these reports that argue against climate change back to their roots, they are usually sponsored/funded by this sort of money.

The research that suggests and now accepts the theories of CC do not come from government or big business and have their roots in the critical thinkers of the academic world the trick is to separate this from Big Oil and other vested interests who like anyone with money tends to get the results they want - not question theories in an truly critical manner..

[wilcopops]

Who really has more lobbying power and incentive. Koch, Exxon et al. I would say oil companies that also provide major political support to politicians lining up against environmental concerns.

I would prefer to listen the the real scientist that have less skin in the game in these issues. They are out there. If you are looking to support your agenda or belief you will probably miss them.

Are you suggesting that vested interests influence these things? Well so do the anti-GW brigade who point out that all the scientists on the GW gravey train rely on "The sky is falling" headlines to keep those research grants coming in to keep them all in their cushy jobs.

Sadly this is a very blinkered and facetious argument.

THe CC proponents are from hugely varied backgrounds and funding for universities around the world is not really done in such a simplistic way - over the centuries there have been many systems of funding organised that are actually very good at maintaining the independence of academic research - this of course is reognised and one of the cornerstones of the democratic system. governments in the west seldom dicta what is or is't researched at Universities - big business however do try continually to stamp their mark here........they tend to be anti CC.

[NBD]

The oil companies don't really suffer much from the MMGW paranoia - they still sell oil, and people still buy it, as petrol is highly inelastic. Extra taxes on petrol hurt consumers and other areas of the economy where people substitute out to cover extra fuel costs.

But governments, alternative energy companies and land owners have gained hugely from the subsidies aimed at promoting renewable energy.

I'm not saying there is no place for renewable energy or a diverse range of energy producers, but I don't see why it should be subsidised to such absurd levels.

[boomerangutang]

Fossil fuel corps have been subsidized much more than alternative energy - particularly if you look at cumulative numbers over decades. Along with that, there are the tax shelters, and mountains of tax breaks that Big Oil and Auto-makers have reaped over the years. If they hadn't hidden their profits, and paid taxes, the US budget might almost be balanced.

For decades, Big Tobacco denied ciggs were addictive, and downplayed bad effects of nicotine

Currently, Big Oil denies there's G.warming, and takes umbrage to mentions that humans are a significant factor.

Both positions prolong their dominance of markets, and their 'bottom line.'

Connect the dots.

[wilcopops]

The oil companies don't really suffer much from the MMGW paranoia - they still sell oil, and people still buy it, as petrol is highly inelastic. Extra taxes on petrol hurt consumers and other areas of the economy where people substitute out to cover extra fuel costs.

But governments, alternative energy companies and land owners have gained hugely from the subsidies aimed at promoting renewable energy.

I'm not saying there is no place for renewable energy or a diverse range of energy producers, but I don't see why it should be subsidised to such absurd levels.

this is simply incorrect - they are worried about share prices and tghe future and the fact that they receive huge government subsidies and so do their customers.

...but really you should check out who is funding the research with an anti-CC message - Exxon have "shelled" (pardon the pun) out fortunes.

[RickBradford]

This tired old suggestion that the global oil companies are the big spenders in the climate debate needs putting to bed.

There is no doubt that Exxon spends money to fund projects which suit it -- I have seen reports that it has lashed out $23 million in grants and so forth to various organisations. The Koch Brothers are thought to have spent even more. Such vast sums!

The US government spent over $79 billion between 1989 and 2009 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. It's now running at over $7 billion per year.

A total of $30 billion has gone into research, with paltry results.

Earlier this year, the EU promised to spend 20% of its budget on climate matters over the next seven years (2014-2020). That equates to 192 billion euros.

"Rather than being parked in a corner of the EU budget, climate action will now be integrated into all main spending areas – cohesion, innovation, infrastructure, agriculture," [EU Climate Commissioner Connie] Hedegaard said.

By any logical examination of the figures, government outspends the oil industry by a factor of 1000-to-1, with its agenda being as one-sided as Exxon's or the Koch Brothers.

So much for the 'well-funded climate denial machine'.

[wilcopops]

"This tired old suggestion that the global oil companies are the big spenders in the climate debate needs putting to bed." - absolute nonsense - you clearly haven't got a grasp on the issues here.

[canman]

Fossil fuel corps have been subsidized much more than alternative energy - particularly if you look at cumulative numbers over decades. Along with that, there are the tax shelters, and mountains of tax breaks that Big Oil and Auto-makers have reaped over the years. If they hadn't hidden their profits, and paid taxes, the US budget might almost be balanced.

For decades, Big Tobacco denied ciggs were addictive, and downplayed bad effects of nicotine

Currently, Big Oil denies there's G.warming, and takes umbrage to mentions that humans are a significant factor.

Both positions prolong their dominance of markets, and their 'bottom line.'

Connect the dots.

It's the chem trails man

[willyumiii]

I blame the media for tagging it Global Warming.

It is a substantial climate change.

Some areas warmer, some colder, some wetter, some dryer..

Too easy to argue against Global Warming when ,as you point out,, sometimes it is colder.

Climates are changing.

Argue that!

[NBD]

Climates have always changed and we have only a basic understanding of why, and even more limited ability to measure our influence on them.

Argue that.

[boomerangutang]

I blame the media for tagging it Global Warming.

It is a substantial climate change.

Some areas warmer, some colder, some wetter, some dryer..

Too easy to argue against Global Warming when ,as you point out,, sometimes it is colder. Climates are changing. Argue that!

Of course climate changes, so do shoe styles. The issues are: are there trends? and are the changes affected by human-generated pollution and other human activities? If so, to what extent, and what can people do to make things better?

Should we do nothing, as a species? ....and just go on commandeering the entire planet and generating electricity by whatever is the cheapest method (currently, that's coal). and packing mega-cities with ever more int.combustion vehicles, as the Shinawatre gov't and others are fond of doing.

It's easy to adopt a 'what the <deleted>' attitude. Incidentally, that's how opiate addicts often see things: You can ask them to comment on any news topic, and you'll likely get a response like; "Yea man, shit happens. Nothing anyone can do about it."

[Gulfsailor]

I blame the media for tagging it Global Warming.

It is a substantial climate change.

Some areas warmer, some colder, some wetter, some dryer..

Too easy to argue against Global Warming when ,as you point out,, sometimes it is colder. Climates are changing. Argue that!

Of course climate changes, so do shoe styles. The issues are: are there trends? and are the changes affected by human-generated pollution and other human activities? If so, to what extent, and what can people do to make things better?

Should we do nothing, as a species? ....and just go on commandeering the entire planet and generating electricity by whatever is the cheapest method (currently, that's coal). and packing mega-cities with ever more int.combustion vehicles, as the Shinawatre gov't and others are fond of doing.

It's easy to adopt a 'what the <deleted>' attitude. Incidentally, that's how opiate addicts often see things: You can ask them to comment on any news topic, and you'll likely get a response like; "Yea man, shit happens. Nothing anyone can do about it."

Just assuming IPCC models are correct for expected climate change effects, the big question then becomes; should we try to prevent this, and at what cost, or deal with the effects when they present themselves?

Please check this short video for an interesting view on the subject;

Edited; it doesn't show the link to YouTube??

[Gulfsailor]

I blame the media for tagging it Global Warming.

It is a substantial climate change.

Some areas warmer, some colder, some wetter, some dryer..

Too easy to argue against Global Warming when ,as you point out,, sometimes it is colder. Climates are changing. Argue that!

Of course climate changes, so do shoe styles. The issues are: are there trends? and are the changes affected by human-generated pollution and other human activities? If so, to what extent, and what can people do to make things better?

Should we do nothing, as a species? ....and just go on commandeering the entire planet and generating electricity by whatever is the cheapest method (currently, that's coal). and packing mega-cities with ever more int.combustion vehicles, as the Shinawatre gov't and others are fond of doing.

It's easy to adopt a 'what the <deleted>' attitude. Incidentally, that's how opiate addicts often see things: You can ask them to comment on any news topic, and you'll likely get a response like; "Yea man, shit happens. Nothing anyone can do about it."

Just assuming IPCC models are correct for expected climate change effects, the big question then becomes; should we try to prevent this, and at what cost, or deal with the effects when they present themselves?

Please check this short video for an interesting view on the subject;

Edited; it doesn't show the link to YouTube??

Google '50 to 1 project' to see the presentation. TV won't show any of my links.

[francescoassisi]

At the end of the day those who do not buy the theory of global warming and climate change are really barking up the wrong tree. Like those who don't believe in the link between smoking and cancer, that intelligent design is plausible - in the end they are flogging a dead horse and will be put in that dustbin of history labelled "cranks".

[francescoassisi]

Before people go blathering on about "20% of EU budget" they might get the info right and look at the other takes on this -http://www.rtcc.org/2013/02/08/wwf-eu-budget-a-bad-deal-for-the-climate/

[RickBradford]

The information comes directly from the EU's Website in September 2013:

Under the 2014-2020 EU budget, support for climate activities through all major EU funding programmes – including agriculture, regional development, and the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - will be increased to at least 20% of overall spending. The new LIFE climate sub-programme will help to 'mainstream' climate action into the budget, while adding value by addressing the specific needs of climate projects.

That equates to 192 billion euros (US$260 billion) over 7 years. As for the WWF complaining, well, that's what they do.

[francescoassisi]

Worth every Euro, despite the bad targeting of which some posters appear to know nothing.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change?CMP=EMCENVEML1631&et_cid=51265&et_rid=11137&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fenvironment%2f2013%2fsep%2f27%2fipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change

[francescoassisi]

The information comes directly from the EU's Website in September 2013:

Under the 2014-2020 EU budget, support for climate activities through all major EU funding programmes including agriculture, regional development, and the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - will be increased to at least 20% of overall spending. The new LIFE climate sub-programme will help to 'mainstream' climate action into the budget, while adding value by addressing the specific needs of climate projects.

That equates to 192 billion euros (US$260 billion) over 7 years. As for the WWF complaining, well, that's what they do.

So why not try to make some sense of it rather than continuing to blather, read some analyses. 20 % means absolutely nothing out of context, you are brandishing it about as if it is some conclusive evidence that CC didn't exist -how daft can you get?

Basically you are putting forward the kind of argument that would say a black cat is pink because that's the color of it's anus.......try to see the whole picture, drop the conspiracy theories and then leap into the 21st century.

[wilcopops]

THe original article appeared in both Telegrapph and Daily Mail....if you don't know thew significance of this then the following link might help

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/

this is the only forum I can think of where the majority of members would pass the test.....

[RickBradford]

@francescoassisi

I think you must have mistaken me for a different poster.

The context is simple. You replied to me as follows:

Before people go blathering on about "20% of EU budget" they might get the info right

I merely pointed out that the "info" about the spending of 20% of the EU budget on climate was a formal figure produced by the EU themselves, publicly available on their website, and therefore presumably is "right".

Nowhere did I suggest this meant that climate change didn't exist, or put forward any "conspiracy theories". I simply reported the fact that this is the EU's formally stated position. Nor did I present any "argument" regarding climate matters in that post.

Having said that, we disagree whether 192 billion euros spent on climate activities is "worth every Euro", as you believe. I would describe it as "the biggest single waste of taxpayers' money imaginable". It will be interesting to see what the majority of Europe's taxpayers think of it.

As for cat's anuses, I'm happy to defer to your obvious expertise in such matters.

[F430murci]

Wow, this is actually pretty scary.

BEIJING – Authorities in northern China are struggling to control a spate of attacks by aggressive hornets that has now killed 42 people and injured at least 1,640.

Residents in the cities of Ankang, Hanzhong and Shangluo in Shaanxi province have been hardest hit, according to local news reports, with 206 people still in hospitals for treatment. Of those, 37 are said to be in critical condition.

. . .

The unseasonably warm and dry weather in the region this fall – traditionally the normal breeding season for hornets – and continued human encroachment into hornet breeding grounds have been suggested as possible reasons for the recent rash of attacks.

http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/03/20800024-china-struggles-to-control-spate-of-hornet-attacks-as-deaths-rise?lite