The Climate Change Debate Thread

[bryannavaro]

the same ipcc that is predicting that we are screwed, has for years and years also predicted that the warming at the south pole would lag that at the north pole, due to the buffer effect of the southern ocean

so the slow response of the antarctic sea ice is not news. in fact, it was predicted long ago. yet now an army of morons are presenting it as some kind of proof that the earth isn't warming. like a map of antarctic sea ice in the middle of effing winter is supposed to prove anything.

antarctic sea ice is predicted to catch up and start to melt at the same rate as the north pole later this century.the whole point of predictions is that they give us time to respond. but for some people the only proof will be when it is already melted and we are all screwed. it's always the same. 20 years ago the same people were laughing at the predictions for sea ice at the north pole.

[Akrasia]

Did anyone see the program on BBC last night by Ian Stewart about the debate between climate science and corporate propaganda. It was quite good, although it was just the introductory episode in a series and they didn't go very deep into the details of the climate debate but next week promises to look more closely at the deniers arguments.

[Pax]

Did anyone see the program on BBC last night by Ian Stewart about the debate between climate science and corporate propaganda. It was quite good, although it was just the introductory episode in a series and they didn't go very deep into the details of the climate debate but next week promises to look more closely at the deniers arguments.

Sounds good. I haven't seen it yet but it's called, Earth: The Climate Wars


episode one "The Battle Begins" is about

In the 1970s the world seemed to be falling apart. From acid rain to overpopulation, ecological concerns were at the fore. And it was at this time that climate change first became a hot political issue. But it wasn't global warming that frightened scientists, it was the complete opposite; a new ice age.

Dr Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change from its very beginning and examines just how the scientific community managed to get it so very wrong back in the Seventies. Along the way he uncovers some of the great unsung heroes of climate change science, and introduces us to a secret organisation of American government scientists, known as Jason, who wrote the first official report on global warming as far back as 1979.

He shows how - by the late 1980s - global warming had already become a serious political issue. It looked as if the world was uniting to take action. But it turned out to be a false dawn. Because in the 1990s global warming would be transformed into one of the biggest scientific controversies of our age

As the bbc iplayer is not available outside the uk you'll have to download it.

the first episode is available for download here

(use a torrent application like utorrent along with peerguardian2 to download)

[Honda_M]

Did anyone see the program on BBC last night by Ian Stewart about the debate between climate science and corporate propaganda. It was quite good, although it was just the introductory episode in a series and they didn't go very deep into the details of the climate debate but next week promises to look more closely at the deniers arguments.

you mean did anybody see the BBC carbon tax propaganda last night?

[SPN]

Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy Of Climate Models

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in climate.

The findings, just published in the online edition of the journal Science, shed further light on the fluctuations in greenhouse gases and climate in Earth's past, and appear to confirm the validity of the types of computer models that are used to project a warmer climate in the future, researchers said.

"We've identified a consistent and coherent pattern of carbon dioxide fluctuations from the past and are able to observe the correlation of this to temperature in the northern and southern hemispheres," said Ed Brook, an associate professor of geosciences at Oregon State University. "This is a global, interconnected system of ocean and atmosphere, and data like these help us better understand how it works."

Probably won't stop the Wingers sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la, we don't belive you", but then Science never was their strong point.

[eyeSpy]

for those who think more CO2 is a fab idea for increasing plant growth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7620921.stm

A lot of faith is being placed in some circles in the capacity of trees and plants to maintain absorption of CO2 as concentrations of the gas rise, or even to use the extra CO2 to grow faster and absorb more of it.

It is one of the reasons behind the recent upsurge of interest in having western governments pay to protect tropical forests.

But the DRI research is one of a number of pieces of evidence suggesting it will not always work. Some ecosystems might continue to absorb carbon dioxide, and perhaps increase the rate of absorption; others may react to warming by releasing the greenhouse gas.

"We conducted this study under current ambient levels of CO2 so we don't know for sure what'll happen in the future," said Professor Arnone.

"But we don't anticipate a huge effect of [elevated] CO2 on these systems. As high temperatures become more commonplace, you might expect a persistent reduction in the uptake of CO2 by natural ecosystems, and that may mean that the net rate of CO2 elevation may increase."

[smitchy2]

There definitely should be a 2 pronged attack on global warming.
This is fairly unhelpful article suggesting it is not beneficial to increase global forests.
If they are not working in hot countries put them in climates where there effect on C02 will be effective. It is all in well saying that emissions have to be cut but that is not going to happen in developing places like Brazil, China and India where peoples lives will be stunted if stringent limits are put on their carbon output(which they won’t agree to anyway).
Making vehicles more efficient (especially in the US and developing areas) and perhaps looking at ways to transfer emissions under the sea (50% of CO2 is absorbed from the sea at the moment).
I think focus must also look at ways to reduce methane which primarily comes from livestock. It is the 2nd biggest greenhouse gas that effects the ozone. Feeding methods should be investigated to reduce these levels.

[Pax]

Did anyone see the program on BBC last night by Ian Stewart about the debate between climate science and corporate propaganda. It was quite good, although it was just the introductory episode in a series and they didn't go very deep into the details of the climate debate but next week promises to look more closely at the deniers arguments.

Sounds good. I haven't seen it yet but it's called, Earth: The Climate Wars


episode one "The Battle Begins" is about

In the 1970s the world seemed to be falling apart. From acid rain to overpopulation, ecological concerns were at the fore. And it was at this time that climate change first became a hot political issue. But it wasn't global warming that frightened scientists, it was the complete opposite; a new ice age.

Dr Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change from its very beginning and examines just how the scientific community managed to get it so very wrong back in the Seventies. Along the way he uncovers some of the great unsung heroes of climate change science, and introduces us to a secret organisation of American government scientists, known as Jason, who wrote the first official report on global warming as far back as 1979.

He shows how - by the late 1980s - global warming had already become a serious political issue. It looked as if the world was uniting to take action. But it turned out to be a false dawn. Because in the 1990s global warming would be transformed into one of the biggest scientific controversies of our age

As the bbc iplayer is not available outside the uk you'll have to download it.

the first episode is available for download here

(use a torrent application like utorrent along with peerguardian2 to download)

The second episode of "Climate Wars" is available from the link below.

earth.the.climate.wars.s01e02.ws.pdtv.xvid-council.avi


It's probably one of the best documentary series on the science of climate change and surrounding history of it. If you've any interest in the issue, have a computer on, and can install the relevant software, then I suggest you should try and seed the file.

[Stíofán]

George Monbiot has a good column today, having a go at Christopher Booker. If memory serves there was a thread titled "Artic ice refuses to melt as ordered" here a few months ago.

My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km". To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

[eyeSpy]

From today's IT

Climate change has lengthened growing season, says report

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...420015020.html