The global warming as for today :D

[DMBEAR]

Common sense dictates that if you change something that is in balance by such gigantic proportions as we have over the last 100 something years something is gonna change.

It happenes with everything else, why not nature? Yes nature is robust and can adapt to a certain degree, but there is a limit. It doesnt take very many degrees in either direction either to have a very noticeble effect on the planet and the creatures and plants that live here.

Common sense people.

(Image removed from quote.)

What we need to do is find some of the books that our ancestors left after the last ice age uh, what was it 10,000 yrs ago? Maybe they wrote someting about how they warmed the earth up back then.

I bet Fred Flinstone was pissed they made him quit driving his kickass car w/ his feet since that was melting the ice roads. 

[Angus]

It has not been steadily warming for the past 10.000 years. We had ups and downs. But now we're having an up, in a sun-down. That's a bit on the odd side.

Oh, and Moray, I see two blunders in my post, - sorry.
One is the wording. Sea ice age should be age of sea ice.
And secondly "tough to claim it isn't getting warmer."

[Angus]

Oh, just bumped across an angle on GW here. Interesting.
http://www.kvikmynd.is/video.asp?land=&offset=9&id=6162

[DMBEAR]

I wonder how expensive a thermometer was 10,000 yrs. ago.  Hmm.

Did they hang it outside the cave, or could they incorporate it Feng shui style inside w/ the torches and Sabertooth rugs.

[cpxxx]

Angus, I've seen that before. I don't even know where to start with debunking his logic. His essential argument that we should do something because AGW might be real is totally spurious. Also his timescale is absurd.'Ten years' from now. How old is that video? We must be due some of the consequences now.

The more I look at climate change the more skeptical I become, apart from the fact that the warming has stopped and is reversing since 1998. Something that is an inconvenient truth for many people. Sure, you'll argue that the overall trend is warming and that cooling is merely a natural variation in the upward trend. But what if it isn't? What if this continues and we enter a cooling phase over the next few years. Is that going to be man made as well?

What about the fact that the Antarctic has resolutely refusing to fall into the consensus and now has more ice cover than ever. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/5200229/Antarctic-ice-cover-increasing-due-to-hole-in-ozone-layer.html Note the excuse given for this increase. That other great scare story 'The hole in the ozone layer'. So we are expected to believe that the hole in the ozone layer which we supposedly caused is actually holding back climate change. Frankly if it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. According to all the experts, the ice should be melting in the Antarctic. It isn't so they desperately search for a reason that doesn't debunk their great theory. Doesn't any of this this raise any suspicion in your mind?

Then there's your favourite, the arctic ice cover which also increased recently even the overall trend is to decrease. What if that continues? In my opinion a lot of people are going to look pretty stupid in a few years time after buying into the whole man made climate change thing. 
What is undoubtedly true is that we have had some climate change. That's clear, but as to whether or not we caused it. That's far from clear. Time will tell.

[Angus]

About his logic:
He also assumes that in the phase of doing something when not needed, it will catapult mankind into a great depression. However a side-effect there could be the contrary, since the measures taken tackle with alternative energy and waste management, which are in the long run very healthy for the economy.
His worst case scenario of no action and full MMGW is however not the worst case scenario (the Venus scenario), since he assumes that mankind will survive through some very bad times.

As for Antarctica, the latest news are that there is indeed some big things going on. But it's a heck of a chunk, and things there happen much slower than in the Northern hemisphere.
Now also bear in mind that the sun is now a bit on the cold side. Actually very much so.
Anyway, the IPCC has been forecasting SL rise WITHOUT including the two biggest chunks of Ice, Antarctica and Greenland. Both land-based. Now it turns out that the rise in SL exceeds their predictions 3 times.
"Glaciers can be difficult to use as indicators of change, in part because melt area is not direct a measure of change as the change in mass of glacier, but mass is more difficult to measure. Chenges in mass correspond to accumulation or loss of ice. Nearly all glaciers studied are decreasing in mass, sesulting in rising sea level as the water drains to the ocean. Excluding Antarctica and Greenland, the rate of sea level rise from glacial melt is estimated at 0,58 millimeters fer year from 1961 to 2005, with að higher rate of  0,98 milleters per year between 1993 and 2005. The largest contributors to this rise are glaciers in Alaska and other parts of the Arctic, and the hig mountain of Asia. By 2100, glacial melt may increase sea level further 0,1 to 0,25 meters."
You can also see how careful their prediction is. 0.1 to 0.25....not a lot. But it's a humongous volume in all... Anyway, the result it that one or both of those biggies is responsible for the increase. It's just harder to see.
BTW, the Greenland Glacier had it's fastest retreat in 2007, - the year when some (cough) on these boards claimed to be a record cold one.
Here is something about the reading of data...
http://loftslag.blog.is/blog/loftslag/
(scroll down to the Youtube linkie
Now, to the sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20

AFAIK our current solar cycle is a long one, it's still cooling after 12 years. No sunspot at the moment.

[DMBEAR]

If you can get funding to research something that has this many different conclusions, woofriggenhooo.  If you can make money with wild claims and theories, yippiekiyea. 

Just make a website with a picture of a factory.  Name it www.SEESMOKEBAD.com.  And the people will both cheer and boo you.








srry if you actually clicked that link 

[Angus]

"If you can get funding to research something that has this many different conclusions, woofriggenhooo.  If you can make money with wild claims and theories, yippiekiyea. "

The point with the GW denialists being well funded may be that the funding has an economical point....
I have a cousin whose doctor degree is about the sexlife of trouts or something in that direction. May sound pointless, is never the less much more useful than a denialist funding. Now what a funding that is...

Anyway, I agree on the point that some research being funded is completely off.......

[DMBEAR]

"If you can get funding to research something that has this many different conclusions, woofriggenhooo.  If you can make money with wild claims and theories, yippiekiyea. "

The point with the GW denialists being well funded may be that the funding has an economical point....
I have a cousin whose doctor degree is about the sexlife of trouts or something in that direction. May sound pointless, is never the less much more useful than a denialist funding. Now what a funding that is...

Anyway, I agree on the point that some research being funded is completely off.......

Like any other issue this one is being taken advantage of by both sides.

Politics and Industry are both using actual facts that work for both sides of the argument. 

Guess my point was that you can get funding to do studies on either side of the issue and come up w/ completely different outcomes if you are steering it toward the outcome your financial backers are lookin for.

And that's where we seem to be.  No concensus.

Then there are the people on each side that say there is one in their favor.

[Angus]

So, at the end of the day, one must sometimes trust one's own nose I guess.
Mine says warming. Nice and steady in quite some area. And I benefit from it, must admit that.