Case for man-made warming increased

[questionmark]

London, England (CNN) -- Evidence of man-made warming has increased in the past year, according to one of the world's leading climate research centers. The UK's Met Office Hadley Center says data from a range of climate indicators continues to make an "overwhelming" case for long-term man-made global warming. "It is clear from the observational evidence across a wide range of indicators that the world is warming," Matt Palmer, an oceans expert at the Met Office, said in a statement. Read more...

[Mr.United_Nations]

Did they forget about the volcanos?

[Guest]

Did they forget about the volcanos?

There are always volcanoes going off across the world. The only difference about the current ones are that they present an immediate danger to human life and so they get reported on.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Lets embrace the warming of the world - a warmer world has more benefits than a colder one. just look at the tropics teeming with life, look at the polar regions or glaciers life is sparse.

People just don't like change, that's the problem, a gradual warming over the projected period is manageable. the Human species has faced far worse, and over come it.

someone like you Br - answer this question. if C02 is the cause of global warming - for which you already accept - If the roles were reversed and the experts told us we was facing a Global Cooling would you be in favour of producing and releasing more C02 into the atmosphere to stop the cooling.

[Guest]

Lets embrace the warming of the world - a warmer world has more benefits than a colder one. just look at the tropics teeming with life, look at the polar regions or glaciers life is sparse.

People just don't like change, that's the problem, a gradual warming over the projected period is manageable. the Human species has faced far worse, and over come it.

someone like you Br - answer this question. if C02 is the cause of global warming - for which you already accept - If the roles were reversed and the experts told us we was facing a Global Cooling would you be in favour of producing and releasing more C02 into the atmosphere to stop the cooling.

Possibly I would - but been a systems inclined thinker, I would want to do a hell of a lot of research before making such a leap and indulging in global terraforming. I do not trust tinkerers who don't possess all the facts, and that is what we have been unconciously indulging in for the last 2 centuries (actually for the last 8 millenia).

Your initial premises are all wrong though, a rapidly changing world is bad for all life and leads to mass extinctions. Ecosystems only adapt successfully over millions of year time scales.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

Possibly I would - but been a systems inclined thinker, I would want to do a hell of a lot of research before making such a leap and indulging in global terraforming. I do not trust tinkerers who don't possess all the facts, and that is what we have been unconciously indulging in for the last 2 centuries (actually for the last 8 millenia).

Your initial premises are all wrong though, a rapidly changing world is bad for all life and leads to mass extinctions. Ecosystems only adapt successfully over millions of year time scales.

Br Cornelius

i was going to highlight part of this, but i just cant decide what part is more important.

we have tinkerers right now telling us how to fix a problem. problem is they dont know how big that problem is or what is causing it.

i am adding this quote from the op link.

Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office.

But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise.

Scientists don't know yet why the slowdown has occurred, but say "natural variability within the climate system" could be to blame.

Edited November 27, 2010 by danielost

[Wickian]

i was going to highlight part of this, but i just cant decide what part is more important.

we have tinkerers right now telling us how to fix a problem. problem is they dont know how big that problem is or what is causing it.

i am adding this quote from the op link.

Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office.

But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise.

Scientists don't know yet why the slowdown has occurred, but say "natural variability within the climate system" could be to blame.

I know Phil Jones admitted that he's calculated little to no statistical warming between 1999 and 2009 I believe were the dates.

[Guest]

i was going to highlight part of this, but i just cant decide what part is more important.

we have tinkerers right now telling us how to fix a problem. problem is they dont know how big that problem is or what is causing it.

i am adding this quote from the op link.

Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office.

But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise.

Scientists don't know yet why the slowdown has occurred, but say "natural variability within the climate system" could be to blame.

The proposal is to stop tinkering by stopping emitting CO2. That is the one and only solution, anyone who trys to sell you the idea of painting roofs etc is a fool.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

The proposal is to stop tinkering by stopping emitting CO2. That is the one and only solution, anyone who trys to sell you the idea of painting roofs etc is a fool.

Br Cornelius

i guess you didnt read the part where the increase has decreased over the last ten years, which by the way i predicted.

[EternalBlizzard]

If all of us will help together it will be a blitz to finish our problem

[Guest]

i guess you didnt read the part where the increase has decreased over the last ten years, which by the way i predicted.

Decadal variation is understood and not proof against the overall observed trend. If you really had read the article this point was made clear.

What is interesting is that the Gulf Stream, one of the key components of the global energy transport system has been increasing in speed for the last decade - which shows there is an increase in movement of energy from the tropics to the poles. That energy has come from somewhere (trapped by CO2). This has very serious consequences as it will precipitate one of the tipping points as the Arctic polar ice finally disappears and the degree of reflected energy falls of a cliff. Already the Baffin Island Glaciers are all but gone. This will mean even more rapid warming of the oceans which will inevitably lead to a sharp spike in air temperatures. All of this is accompanied by stronger storm systems as the temperature differentials drive bigger air eddy currents.

The problem is that this particular set of circumstances have never happened before so it is very difficult to p[redict what will happen when the Arctic is finally clear of ice.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 27, 2010 by Guest

[Guest]

If all of us will help together it will be a blitz to finish our problem

The challenge is far greater than you could imagine. Our culture is predicated on cheap fossil fuels. Our culture could not exist without them. Take them out of the system (by Blitzing the problem) and nothing in our culture will be working in a familiar way and our ability to feed the mass of humanity will not be there anymore. I have undertaken a lot of background research on this issue and I cannot consider that we as a species have the adaptability and wisdom to implement the changes required to make our future sustainable and stable. There are absolutely no magic bullets on the horizon which will dig us out of the hole we are in.

I think in theory its just about possible, but in practice I think it is impossible.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

Decadal variation is understood and not proof against the overall observed trend. If you really had read the article this point was made clear.

What is interesting is that the Gulf Stream, one of the key components of the global energy transport system has been increasing in speed for the last decade - which shows there is an increase in movement of energy from the tropics to the poles. That energy has come from somewhere (trapped by CO2). This has very serious consequences as it will precipitate one of the tipping points as the Arctic polar ice finally disappears and the degree of reflected energy falls of a cliff. Already the Baffin Island Glaciers are all but gone. This will mean even more rapid warming of the oceans which will inevitably lead to a sharp spike in air temperatures. All of this is accompanied by stronger storm systems as the temperature differentials drive bigger air eddy currents.

The problem is that this particular set of circumstances have never happened before so it is very difficult to p[redict what will happen when the Arctic is finally clear of ice.

Br Cornelius

you have it all wrong, i am not saying it is getting warmer. i am saying humans arent the cause of it, in fact i dont think we add 10% to the problem. i predicted it because we are coming off of a 70 year solar cycle. it should continue to warm up until 2015 due to us being on the way up of solar maximus. also in about 25 years they will be crying about a new ice age again. like they did in the 70s

[Guest]

you have it all wrong, i am not saying it is getting warmer. i am saying humans arent the cause of it, in fact i dont think we add 10% to the problem. i predicted it because we are coming off of a 70 year solar cycle. it should continue to warm up until 2015 due to us being on the way up of solar maximus. also in about 25 years they will be crying about a new ice age again. like they did in the 70s

Solar cycles are modelled and accounted for. A few fring scientists believe they are the only drivers - welcome to the fringe Daniel.

Should anyone be in any doubts about what is really going on and why Daniel has such out of kilter ideas about the climate;

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=7743&method=full

Br Cornelius

Edited November 27, 2010 by Guest

[The Caspian Hare]

i was going to highlight part of this, but i just cant decide what part is more important.

we have tinkerers right now telling us how to fix a problem. problem is they dont know how big that problem is or what is causing it.

i am adding this quote from the op link.

Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office.

But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise.

Scientists don't know yet why the slowdown has occurred, but say "natural variability within the climate system" could be to blame.

You are making the mistake of cherry-picking one particular factoid from the research that reinforces what you want to believe while ignoring the general conclusion of the researchers.

[Guest]

You are making the mistake of cherry-picking one particular factoid from the research that reinforces what you want to believe while ignoring the general conclusion of the researchers.

You think its a mistake. Its a choice and a very active one at that. Beliefs shaping what reality you are able to accept.

Br Cornelius

[J.B.]

You think its a mistake. Its a choice and a very active one at that. Beliefs shaping what reality you are able to accept.

Br Cornelius

No matter what, our current incarnation is screwed, that about sum it up? We'll fall into a bad spot whether we fix our problems or not, and we'll dig our way out with blood, death, and ingenuity. Welcome to the human race, this is what we've been doing for millennia.

[liteness]

you have it all wrong, i am not saying it is getting warmer. i am saying humans arent the cause of it, in fact i dont think we add 10% to the problem. i predicted it because we are coming off of a 70 year solar cycle. it should continue to warm up until 2015 due to us being on the way up of solar maximus. also in about 25 years they will be crying about a new ice age again. like they did in the 70s

Global warming/climate change is a political movement. With loads of bad agendas.

The only good thing about it, is that perhaps it will push along better technology.

Burning fossil fuels is so so not 2010.

But I totally agree. The temp on the earth has little to nothing to do with human activity, and there is absolutely no evidence to support that it from human activity, there is actually more evidence showing that it isn't. But zero that shows that it is.

Sounds like politics to me.

I don't agree with the models and the 'science' behind what we're being fed from the media.

But I tend not to complain because it gives motivation towards advances that are better for our civilization.

On the other hand, the Earth will change, with or without us. We can not do anything about it - at all. We have to adapt, and we must stop insinuating that we can do anything about it.

This little bubble of ours, in our little solar system with our little sun is still greatly larger and far more complex than we will understand for probably another 30-50 years.

As for air pollution from fossil fuels, that is terrible as well. So I recommend to those who understand (or perhaps have the opinion that) the climate change agenda is probably wrong - it is still best to support the movement for the possibility of more advanced technology for energy.

[danielost]

You are making the mistake of cherry-picking one particular factoid from the research that reinforces what you want to believe while ignoring the general conclusion of the researchers.

do you mean the part where it is natural or the part where researchers are ignoring the natural part of it.

[danielost]

Global warming/climate change is a political movement. With loads of bad agendas.

The only good thing about it, is that perhaps it will push along better technology.

Burning fossil fuels is so so not 2010.

But I totally agree. The temp on the earth has little to nothing to do with human activity, and there is absolutely no evidence to support that it from human activity, there is actually more evidence showing that it isn't. But zero that shows that it is.

Sounds like politics to me.I don't agree with the models and the 'science' behind what we're being fed from the media.

But I tend not to complain because it gives motivation towards advances that are better for our civilization.

On the other hand, the Earth will change, with or without us. We can not do anything about it - at all. We have to adapt, and we must stop insinuating that we can do anything about it.

This little bubble of ours, in our little solar system with our little sun is still greatly larger and far more complex than we will understand for probably another 30-50 years.

As for air pollution from fossil fuels, that is terrible as well. So I recommend to those who understand (or perhaps have the opinion that) the climate change agenda is probably wrong - it is still best to support the movement for the possibility of more advanced technology for energy.

i agree with this. the problem i have is i hate to be lied to.

[ships-cat]

I'm looking at snow on the ground outside my Catbasket.

It is VERY cold.

This is unusual for the UK in November.. and the weathermen say it is going to get colder.

This is the second year in a row that the UK has had record (ish) cold Winters.

Last year, snow fell in Peking for the first time in yonks.

Global Warming my bum !

meow purr

[danielost]

I'm looking at snow on the ground outside my Catbasket.

It is VERY cold.

This is unusual for the UK in November.. and the weathermen say it is going to get colder.

This is the second year in a row that the UK has had record (ish) cold Winters.

Last year, snow fell in Peking for the first time in yonks.

Global Warming my bum !

meow purr

yea but there is a thread on here some place saying that the gulf stream(that is where the uk gets its heat) is shutting down.

[sepulchrave]

i agree with this. the problem i have is i hate to be lied to.

I also hate being lied to.

Fortunately, there are these nifty things called ``scientific journals'' (note: ``Scientific American'' is not a good scientific journal). In these journals, scientists report ``just the facts'', which are checked by other scientists (who are often competitors of the writers, in both research and funding) before publication.

Of course to understand the articles in these journals, you have to know something about science and math... I would emphasize a working knowledge of statistics as the key ingredient.

You will also have to accept that ``having scientific understanding of an issue'' is quite different than ``memorizing some factoids about an issue''.

[danielost]

I also hate being lied to.

Fortunately, there are these nifty things called ``scientific journals'' (note: ``Scientific American'' is not a good scientific journal). In these journals, scientists report ``just the facts'', which are checked by other scientists (who are often competitors of the writers, in both research and funding) before publication.

Of course to understand the articles in these journals, you have to know something about science and math... I would emphasize a working knowledge of statistics as the key ingredient.

You will also have to accept that ``having scientific understanding of an issue'' is quite different than ``memorizing some factoids about an issue''.

unless you have been taught wrong, yes i agree. but i havent seen any scientists on this forum, well except the ones who accept what ever is written, as long as it is sciencie, is right,

where in everyone keeps thinking i disagree with the idea of global climate change, is wrong, since the only part i disagree with is how much influence man is having. the so called scientists on here and in those reports, make it sound like it is all mans doing when it isnt.

i dont have a phd in my name but i did predict the slow down in the warming, based on the fact of solar cycles, the two that i know where we are in the cycles. there are depending on whom you ask another 3 to 20 more cycles. i do not know where we are in those cycles. but we will be going up to solar maximus now until 2015, the other cycle the 70 year cycle we will be going down in until 2035. how ever in 2035 we will also be getting close to solar maximus again, meaning the cooling will not be as bad is the 70s when we at the low end of both.

Edited November 28, 2010 by danielost

[sepulchrave]

unless you have been taught wrong, yes i agree. but i havent seen any scientists on this forum, well except the ones who accept what ever is written, as long as it is sciencie, is right,

I see. So all the scientists on this forum (myself included) who agree with ``mainstream'' science only do so because we are afraid of being blacklisted if we don't adhere to convention, and not because we have examined the evidence and reached conclusions which are in agreement with the other scientists who have done so?

That's kind of insulting.

where in everyone keeps thinking i disagree with the idea of global climate change, is wrong, since the only part i disagree with is how much influence man is having. the so called scientists on here and in those reports, make it sound like it is all mans doing when it isnt.

I don't think you disagree with the idea of global climate change. I do, however, think you disagree with anthropogenic global warming because all you have read are politicized reports in mainstream media, and you assume that arguments on both sides of the issue have the same amount of bias and BS.

What myself, Br Cornelius, and others are trying to explain is that there is quantitative and rigorous data on the subject, but it involves lots of things like ``numbers'' and ``equations'' and discussion of things like ``statistical significance'' and ``null hypothesis testing'' which the public is in general to lazy to read and comprehend.

i dont have a phd in my name but i did predict the slow down in the warming, based on the fact of solar cycles, the two that i know where we are in the cycles. there are depending on whom you ask another 3 to 20 more cycles. i do not know where we are in those cycles. but we will be going up to solar maximus now until 2015, the other cycle the 70 year cycle we will be going down in until 2035. how ever in 2035 we will also be getting close to solar maximus again, meaning the cooling will not be as bad is the 70s when we at the low end of both.

That's fantastic. I am personally friends with a bunch of scientists who study space weather, including solar maxima and minima. I'm glad you can make such definite predictions on the subject, when even they are reluctant to characterize the current status of the sun, let alone correlate the solar minimum/maximum - which is defined by magnetic activity - to thermal output.

To restate a point I made earlier: knowledge of ``scientific trivia'' (I read somewhere that the sun has an 11-year activity cycle!) does NOT indicate ``scientific understanding''. Case in point: you authoritatively cite a ``70 year cycle'' (which I am not familiar with, perhaps you are referring to the sunspot cycle postulated by Gustav Sporer in the 1800s?) however solar data has only been collected for the past 400 years - only enough time for 5 complete cycles to occur (if these cycles even exist). Given the random variation in sun spot number this is hardly enough data to definitively establish a cycle of that length.