Global Warming

[Mr.United_Nations]

Is it me ore every year it gets cooler?

Remmber here in the u.k like in 2000 or sumthing that it was guna be warm?

Well it wasn't it was wet. The year after that they said it would be cold, it was warm actualy that year.

And in 2008 they said the summer would be wet again because in 2007 it was horriable lol.

But they wrong again in 2009 however its getting colder and colder.

Im sorry but forcasters cannot predict a years weather scale.

[DooDahMan]

The earth's temperature has not risen and has actually cooled since 1998. Hence the spin to "climate change" instead of "global warming". You will undoubtedly catch some flak from some who insist you are merely descibing weather, but challenge anyone to define climate without referencing weather or weather-related phenomena.

[ElectricitySwift]

Is it me ore every year it gets cooler?

Remmber here in the u.k like in 2000 or sumthing that it was guna be warm?

Well it wasn't it was wet. The year after that they said it would be cold, it was warm actualy that year.

And in 2008 they said the summer would be wet again because in 2007 it was horriable lol.

But they wrong again in 2009 however its getting colder and colder.

Im sorry but forcasters cannot predict a years weather scale.

I agree look at the snow..omg, I woke up this morning and thought I was in Alaska :-O

[Mattshark]

Is it me ore every year it gets cooler?

Remmber here in the u.k like in 2000 or sumthing that it was guna be warm?

Well it wasn't it was wet. The year after that they said it would be cold, it was warm actualy that year.

And in 2008 they said the summer would be wet again because in 2007 it was horriable lol.

But they wrong again in 2009 however its getting colder and colder.

Im sorry but forcasters cannot predict a years weather scale.

Weather is not the same as climate.

1998 was anomalously warm and we are still in warming. Last year was one of 10 warmest years recorded and the Arctic was at it 2nd lowest record ice level.

[Guest]

Though you may be experiencing localized cooling, the global trend is most definitely warming. The scientists have changed the name to reflect this. In a complex system change will always bring localized chaotic shifts which may be temporary or permanent and may be up or down. One localized effect has been the gradual weakening of the Gulf stream as more Arctic melt water resists its flow. If you want to see what Britain would look like without the gulf stream then do a goodle search on Labrador and that will tell you what our local weather should be like if dictated by our latitude alone - not nice !! The recent run of bad weather was predicated by German scientists and they expect a run of 10 cool years. Did you also hear about the very untypical temperature of 45 centigrade in Australia, and the fact that they have had one of the longest sustained droughts recorded. The global climate model is unpredictable and highly fudged, but it has been remarkable accurate despite all that.

The desire to disbelieve in climate change is motivated by our resistance to face up to the sad fact that our own personal behavior will in all probability result in the demise of at least 70% of all life on earth. This is the sort of extinction rate experienced in previous mass extinctions (which all counts show, we are in the grip of the worst mass extinct ever faced by life on earth). Climate change is an existential crisis as much as anything else.I love a good conspiracy as much as the next man, but l;ets not let that get in the way of the evidence.

Shoog

[stevewinn]

Weather is not the same as climate.

1998 was anomalously warm and we are still in warming. Last year was one of 10 warmest years recorded and the Arctic was at it 2nd lowest record ice level.

The only thing consistent is the Inconsistency of the Global Climate going back through time millions and millions of years. IF you go back to the age of the Dinosaurs you'll find the Arctic Ice melted completely during the summer months. We have at least 7degrees left to go before we match earth's global temperature at that time. Its all about change.

[ExpandMyMind]

"Last year was one of 10 warmest years recorded and the Arctic was at it 2nd lowest record ice level. "

can you specify links? i'm pretty sure there are many who said 2007 was one of the coldest on record in contrast to what you say of 2008. http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/...ars-hits-china/ at least it was in china

ive heard about the arctic but what about antarctica? isnt that getting colder? could be wrong about that at this moment in time, but i do know that it was.

[Mattshark]

"Last year was one of 10 warmest years recorded and the Arctic was at it 2nd lowest record ice level. "

can you specify links? i'm pretty sure there are many who said 2007 was one of the coldest on record in contrast to what you say of 2008. http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/...ars-hits-china/ at least it was in china

ive heard about the arctic but what about antarctica? isnt that getting colder? could be wrong about that at this moment in time, but i do know that it was.

2008 joint 8th warmest year on record

From Dec 2007: Top 11 warmest years on record all within last 13 years.

Arctic 2008

NSIDC: Anarctic ice shelf degradation

British Antarctic Survey: Temperature trends. You see there is a lot more anomalous warming than cooling (again you would not expect uniform warming, but a variation, but there is a very clear trend there.

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

[Mattshark]

The only thing consistent is the Inconsistency of the Global Climate going back through time millions and millions of years. IF you go back to the age of the Dinosaurs you'll find the Arctic Ice melted completely during the summer months. We have at least 7degrees left to go before we match earth's global temperature at that time. Its all about change.

That is a very narrow way of looking at it. It does not address rate of change or influence of change. Sorry but that is all rather meaningless.

[stevewinn]

That is a very narrow way of looking at it. It does not address rate of change or influence of change. Sorry but that is all rather meaningless.

How do you make that out? aren't we going to reference earth's past climate change? So were not going to address what made the climate change back, thousands or millions of years ago, were just going to start from when? 250,000 years ago. I guess it must be clear cut Earth's current climate change is down to man. I guess its case closed. guilty has charged.

[Mattshark]

How do you make that out? aren't we going to reference earth's past climate change? So were not going to address what made the climate change back, thousands or millions of years ago, were just going to start from when? 250,000 years ago. I guess it must be clear cut Earth's current climate change is down to man. I guess its case closed. guilty has charged.

Well there is over whelming evidence. And yes climate history is acknowledge as are the things that have effected its change. For a start the continent of Antarctica location and giant meteors hitting the planet. But you have referenced it in such a narrow fashion that it is meaningless.

Do you really think that climatologists ignore historical climate? But you also have to look at what affects it and rates of change.

[ExpandMyMind]

thanks for the links matt.

the thing with global warming is that i dont beleive any tests or models etc etc are objective and un-biased. the scientists already believe they have an idea of the outcome because they already believe global warming exists. do you agree that some tests could be compramised through this fact? i know they can be, for a fact.

just look at pharmasutical companies who are now not allowed to test their own drugs, for the reason that if a scientist has an idea of an outcome to an experiment, said experiments results can be affected.

the same goes for global warming. at least imo. do i not have a point? because if theres some reason the same rules dont apply to the global warming scene, i would like to know

[Mattshark]

thanks for the links matt.

the thing with global warming is that i dont beleive any tests or models etc etc are objective and un-biased. the scientists already believe they have an idea of the outcome because they already believe global warming exists. do you agree that some tests could be compramised through this fact? i know they can be, for a fact.

just look at pharmasutical companies who are now not allowed to test their own drugs, for the reason that if a scientist has an idea of an outcome to an experiment, said experiments results can be affected.

the same goes for global warming. at least imo. do i not have a point? because if theres some reason the same rules dont apply to the global warming scene, i would like to know

The thing about science is that the point of the experiment is to disprove their hypothesis, not prove it.

Drug companies are not allowed to trial their own drugs because they are corporations. Universities are not. They have no vested interest. It would in this case like saying to me that I can not test my hypothesis because I came up with the idea. Secondly a drug trail is not the same as an modelling experiment. The point of the papers produced is the results are falsifiable and you can see exactly what has been done in the research and it is easily repeated. Drug trails are not easily repeated. The 2 things are extremely different.

[stevewinn]

Well there is over whelming evidence. And yes climate history is acknowledge as are the things that have effected its change. For a start the continent of Antarctica location and giant meteors hitting the planet. But you have referenced it in such a narrow fashion that it is meaningless.

Do you really think that climatologists ignore historical climate? But you also have to look at what affects it and rates of change.

Hmm. I don't think Climatologist ignore the climates history, but whenever Global warming is discussed the past History is never mentioned. It gives the impression that today's climate events are unprecedented when the opposite is true.

So far the whole impact of man's role in climate change us unknown, nothing has been scientifically proven. its simply to early to tell. maybe in another 50 years we'll be able to say exactly what man's impact on the climate is, but until then all we can do is debate.

On another note I tried to get my roof solar panelled, filled in the application form for a government grant to help me be more green. A man come out to price the job. £8,000 it will cost just to do a small part of the roof and then the panels would generate just 25% of my needs. a few days later i received a letter off the government telling me my application for the grant had failed because I earn X amount a year. so much for the government going green.

Matt what's your username on This is Anfield.

Edited February 6, 2009 by stevewinn

[Mattshark]

Hmm. I don't think Climatologist ignore the climates history, but whenever Global warming is discussed the past History is never mentioned. It gives the impression that today's climate events are unprecedented when the opposite is true.

So far the whole impact of man's role in climate change us unknown, nothing has been scientifically proven. its simply to early to tell. maybe in another 50 years we'll be able to say exactly what man's impact on the climate is, but until then all we can do is debate.

On another note I tried to get my roof solar panelled, filled in the application form for a government grant to help me be more green. A man come out to price the job. £8,000 it will cost just to do a small part of the roof and then the panels would generate just 25% of my needs. a few days later i received a letter off the government telling me my application for the grant had failed because I earn X amount a year. so much for the government going green.

Matt what's your username on This is Anfield.

We do have evidence of human influenced warming on every continent though and we do have an alarming rate of change which along with our behaviour is putting us in what could be called a mass extinction event. The evidence is very strong and should be taken seriously. The problem with waiting 50 years is that is will be too late to do anything (it is possible that it is too late to do anything now). Even if you do not thing our influence is a major factor it would make sense any since oil ain't going to be around forever and we are pumping lots of other toxins into the atmosphere. Keeping things at the status quo is very dangerous in the long term.

Yeah sadly solar panels have never been sold at a sensible price, which is a shame because they are useful things.

I don't post on This is Anfield. I do post on Est1892.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Mattshark

[stevewinn]

We do have evidence of human influenced warming on every continent though and we do have an alarming rate of change which along with our behaviour is putting us in what could be called a mass extinction event. The evidence is very strong and should be taken seriously. The problem with waiting 50 years is that is will be too late to do anything (it is possible that it is too late to do anything now). Even if you do not thing our influence is a major factor it would make sense any since oil ain't going to be around forever and we are pumping lots of other toxins into the atmosphere. Keeping things at the status quo is very dangerous in the long term.

Yeah sadly solar panels have never been sold at a sensible price, which is a shame because they are useful things.

I don't post on This is Anfield. I do post on Est1892.

I agree matt, and am all for cutting down on pollution so we can all live in a cleaner more sustainable environment. truth is the evidence isn't conclusive and government action is to slow. You and I might care and go out of our way to help stop/prevent further pollution but at the end of the day we need government assistance and were not getting it.

The surveyor who come out to price the job said if the government spent one Billion pounds, it could fit every home in the UK with solar panels. But the government don't seem concerned. so should we?

Is Est 1892 a good forum? I was sad to see Robbie go, But has the opposing fans say Rafas cracking up.

[Mattshark]

I agree matt, and am all for cutting down on pollution so we can all live in a cleaner more sustainable environment. truth is the evidence isn't conclusive and government action is to slow. You and I might care and go out of our way to help stop/prevent further pollution but at the end of the day we need government assistance and were not getting it.

The surveyor who come out to price the job said if the government spent one Billion pounds, it could fit every home in the UK with solar panels. But the government don't seem concerned. so should we?

Is Est 1892 a good forum? I was sad to see Robbie go, But has the opposing fans say Rafas cracking up.

I would have to disagree mate. I find the evidence very conclusive, not just from climatology but from marine biology and zoology as well. But yes governments are slow to act, but that is no surprise, when are they not! Governments are generally all talk and little action. The ones that aren't tend to be the psychotic ones sadly.

The trouble is the government is not concerned because most of the populous is not concerned. Sadly most people have no idea about the world outside of their living room, never mind the whole planet. They do not thing that events else where can affect us. So until the population care the government won't.

It is ok, some knee-jerkers on there but you get them everywhere, plenty of nice people too. I was more disappointed in his performance more than anything else, but they are so many factors involved it is hard to make a fair judgement on the scenario. I don't really care what opposing fans say. Most of the country would prefer to be in our position than their own.

[stevewinn]

I would have to disagree mate. I find the evidence very conclusive, not just from climatology but from marine biology and zoology as well. But yes governments are slow to act, but that is no surprise, when are they not! Governments are generally all talk and little action. The ones that aren't tend to be the psychotic ones sadly.

The trouble is the government is not concerned because most of the populous is not concerned. Sadly most people have no idea about the world outside of their living room, never mind the whole planet. They do not thing that events else where can affect us. So until the population care the government won't.

It is ok, some knee-jerkers on there but you get them everywhere, plenty of nice people too. I was more disappointed in his performance more than anything else, but they are so many factors involved it is hard to make a fair judgement on the scenario. I don't really care what opposing fans say. Most of the country would prefer to be in our position than their own.

IF the truth is known the earth is going to hell in a hand cart. I cant see us being able to fix the problems.

Your last sentence is spot on. Some fans are over reacting when the results don't go our way. truth is we haven't been this close since the 2001 season when we finished second. when Tommo took over when Houllier had his heart trouble. I have a feeling we'll win the league. remember when Rafas Valencia come back to win the Spanish league after being seven point adrift.

Do you ever listen to Alan Jackson on BBC radio Merseyside, on the Alan Jacko phone in. every Monday and Tuesday night from 7pm. Tonight Friday The phone in is done by someone else but at 7:30 is red Alert http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/art...n_feature.shtml listen live is on the right hand side. tune in just before 7:30.

[Mattshark]

IF the truth is known the earth is going to hell in a hand cart. I cant see us being able to fix the problems.

Your last sentence is spot on. Some fans are over reacting when the results don't go our way. truth is we haven't been this close since the 2001 season when we finished second. when Tommo took over when Houllier had his heart trouble. I have a feeling we'll win the league. remember when Rafas Valencia come back to win the Spanish league after being seven point adrift.

Do you ever listen to Alan Jackson on BBC radio Merseyside, on the Alan Jacko phone in. every Monday and Tuesday night from 7pm. Tonight Friday The phone in is done by someone else but at 7:30 is red Alert http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/art...n_feature.shtml listen live is on the right hand side. tune in just before 7:30.

Probably is and we probably can't, can't give up though either (finally making some progress with sharks, a lot more needed though).

I do remember that Valencia side. We actually have the player who scored the last day goal to win the title for them too (presuming he doesn't have another 500 injuries this season)!

I haven't but if it is online I'll give it a listen.

[+Sherapy]

We do have evidence of human influenced warming on every continent though and we do have an alarming rate of change which along with our behaviour is putting us in what could be called a mass extinction event. The evidence is very strong and should be taken seriously. The problem with waiting 50 years is that is will be too late to do anything (it is possible that it is too late to do anything now). Even if you do not thing our influence is a major factor it would make sense any since oil ain't going to be around forever and we are pumping lots of other toxins into the atmosphere. Keeping things at the status quo is very dangerous in the long term.

Yeah sadly solar panels have never been sold at a sensible price, which is a shame because they are useful things.

I don't post on This is Anfield. I do post on Est1892.

Matty, you nailed it this is not taken serious enough by enough folks and until we raise awareness our gov'ts will be slow to act...thankyou for your speaking out on this. i have such a passion for this and the more we advocate and teach about global warming the better .. .....

it may be a small blip but I will add that in the charters, at least in california this is the focus of the science curricula trying to get this info out as fast as we can....

[Guest]

The sad fact is that we were to late to do anything about it 20yrs ago. We have reached various tipping points which will carry us over into catastrophy whatever we do in the next 10yrs. It is sad but inevitable. Sit back and watch the fireworks, if we are lucky some of us might just come out the other side. If you think I am joking you haven't looked at the overwhelming evidence of ecosystem collapse on all fronts. I personally think this is what the Mayans talked about in the firey end of the 5th Planet - maps quite well to what we are witnessing at the moment.

If we're lucky the space brother will come riding over the horizon and save us all - but I doubt it !

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Probably is and we probably can't, can't give up though either (finally making some progress with sharks, a lot more needed though).

I do remember that Valencia side. We actually have the player who scored the last day goal to win the title for them too (presuming he doesn't have another 500 injuries this season)!

I haven't but if it is online I'll give it a listen.

I caught a glimpse of that on the NEWS, what actually is happening, have they past some sort of law for their protection? and more cash for research?

[Mattshark]

I caught a glimpse of that on the NEWS, what actually is happening, have they past some sort of law for their protection? and more cash for research?

Starting to implement protection. Sadly research is hard because conservation groups won't let scientists do any work because they want the credit. However they do not produce any data or scientific papers, so as good as they think they are and as good as their intentions are, they just making it far more difficult.

[MID]

The earth's temperature has not risen and has actually cooled since 1998. Hence the spin to "climate change" instead of "global warming". You will undoubtedly catch some flak from some who insist you are merely descibing weather, but challenge anyone to define climate without referencing weather or weather-related phenomena.

As you can see, you were correct.

The infiltration of political agendae into science is one of the travesties of the age...and it has been seen in no more profound way that in this man-made global warming nonsense, which, spurred by politics, based on weak science, and embellished by a mainsteam media that plays upon fear-mongering, has sucessfully played people into accepting it.

[Mattshark]

As you can see, you were correct.

The infiltration of political agendae into science is one of the travesties of the age...and it has been seen in no more profound way that in this man-made global warming nonsense, which, spurred by politics, based on weak science, and embellished by a mainsteam media that plays upon fear-mongering, has sucessfully played people into accepting it.

Crap MID you have said this yet you have not made one worthwhile argument in any thread to back this up.

Feel free to show what is wrong with any of the scientific work I have previously posted, or NASA's work, NSIDC's work, NOAA's work, CRU's work. C'mon some real bloody science instead bs claims this.