Global warming not to blame for warmer North Pole? Recent dramatic changes in the Arctic climate - melting sea ice, warmer ocean, green fields in place of icy wilderness, etc - might not all be directly related to global warming. The more clement Arctic climate of recent years could have been triggered by shorter term circulation changes in the oceans and atmosphere. …
Well it looks like there is more than just one factor afoot in climate change. The glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro are receding because the forests have been cut down. The arctic is melting because the its getting a lot of warm ocean currents through it. What else will we see that is attributed to global warming, that has another explanation? Only real science will tell.
This is just denialist propaganda from the usual sources.
What is actually happening is shown in Al Gore's movie, he is one of a small minority of courageous underfunded people who are striving along with James Hansen to get out the truth about the coming catastrophe in the face of universal neglect and suppression of the truth by the denialist media. The polar bears are all drowning, and no-one will listen. Look at the temperatures, they are shooting up like hockey sticks. And what is more, look at Al's brilliant movie, where he manages to show the hockey stick being confirmed by itself while attributing it to Lonnie Thompson. That man is a genius, and I do not mean Thompson, though he is too.
It is not the currents, it is global warming, the sea is rising, we are all doomed, doomed I tell you, unless we get CO2 down to about half present levels. It will require a total ban on all internal combustion and jet engines, and also on all coal powered power stations. Look what happened only last week, we nearly lost East Anglia. I hear it took a personal intervention from Al to save it.
Listen before it is too late. Well, listen because it is already too late. What did I say? Well, listen anyway, and listen good, you febrile deniers. You are all going to be drowned from rising sea levels and if not you will die of thirst.
Wait a second. I must have got that wrong, could you say it again? You said that it was Hansen's outfit, NASA that said this about the North Pole. Hansen a denialist, no of course he isn't. What? Well, fine, maybe this is yet more proof of global warming, they have screwed with the currents, we are in deeper trouble even than I realized....
I don't understand why people are so against global warming. What difference does it make if global warming is real or not - the "thing" has brought man's exploitation of the environment to the attention of most of the civilized world. It's the first time entire governments have at least considered alternative fuels and "green" initiatives. In this context global warming is a good thing.
On another note, this article, and the conclusions of the research is bunk. Regardless of which direction the Arctic waters have circulated the Natives have never had grass (haha) or been forced to move inland due to the flooding of their traditional village sites. Polar bears have never not had enough ice to travel around on forcing them into incredibly long swims where they are drowning. Something is happening that hasn't happened since the Natives have been living up there and it can't be a change in water circulation direction since that is a regularly occurring event that has happened many times over. Fuck these "scientists" and their publicity focused research.
Disclaimer - I have not yet formed an opinion on the reality of global warming don't mistake me for a granola loving hippy - but I certainly don't see anything wrong with scaring the peasants if it makes them alter their ways.
Yet more proof that the one thing we do know about the environment on this planet is that we don't know how most of it works. How can anyone be truly confident it the output of a computer climate model, when a significant part of the input is either guessed, or based on incorrect assumptions/data.
The extended swimming by polar bears has changed the currents, I tells you.
Not this crazy science stuff. We need to stop the planet spinning right now, do you know how much energy is required to spin the planet? Well do you?
Think of the carbon foot print that thing has, the big nuclear power station in the planets core needs to be scrapped right now, who's going to manage the waste, it'll get into the oceans, look at that mid ocean rift spilling out toxic waste and even more carbon I dare say. Don't you know carbon is bad for you, that's why you have to scrape burnt toast. Stop breathing you bast*rds, polluting the planet like that, how dear you.... and so on.
So you'll take on board science when it shows you're right in thinking AGW bunk but deny it's veracity when it says it is true.
The scientists work on things like this. If you're going to believe it, believe it when it disagrees with you. If you're going to be skeptical, be skeptical of it all.
The North Pole melting is happening faster than thought. Why? Warmer ocean. Why? Because currents change and warmer water than thought is getting up there. Why? Because of global warming lower down.
So this is telling you that GW as modelled is right. It shows that the consequences once removed are still being worked on. So why is it you consider this to be proof that the models are bad? All it shows is that the secondary influences aren't well understood.
And that's as likely to make things WORSE as to ameliorate the problem.
The trouble with Climate Change is by the time we have 100% proof that it is occuring and the exact reasons why, it will be way, way too late to do anything to reduce it's effects. So we have to go with the theories that are a best fit to the current body of evidence.
Nobody, especially the scientists would say that computer models are 100% accurate or able to (yet) truly model the complexities of our environment. However, computer climate modelling - specifically to test the effects of Anthropomorphic Climate Change began in the 60's not last week. Changes to the climate seen in the last 5-10 years were previously predicted by computer models. The models were however inaccurate and often underestimated the effects.
I am desperately hoping for some evidence that will show the earth isn't going to continue this warming trend, and I doubt this is it. Hopefully though a reversal in the oscillation might slow down the truly shocking rate of arctic melt (er for a decade or so anyway).
Until we have more evidence either way, surely it is better to err on the side of caution?
If we find out later that we are all going to die and it is beyond man's power to stop it, then I'll be happy to join you all in the orgy of destruction.
Perhaps drunken races round the M25 in souped up 6 litre guzzlers. Each contestent should also have one of those self serving lying bastard politicians strapped to the bonnet and some 'celebrity' cunt on the boot.
No need for coats everybody, you won't be needing them were we're going.
Wow Michael! What world do you live in?
If you think reducing the amount you consume (or waste) is what the modern aristocracy want you are sorely mistaken.
'They' want you to consume as much of their useless shite as you can shovel down your throat or up your arse, which is why the people in the black helicopters are so shit scared of climate change and have been funding as much debunking pseudo-science as they can.
Switching your lights off or your TV onto standy or turning off your taps will actually save you money that you can then spend on your jizz mags and your special brew.
Yes I am an anonymous coward, but I'd rather be an anonymous coward then a deluded twat.
They don't guess half the input. They "extrapolate" it! That's a much fancier scientifical way of saying "made up" that reads far better in research papers.
Garbage In, Garbage Out. We were all taught that when we learnt computers... but for some reason it doesn't seem to apply to climate models.
>Why do you think Greenland is so called?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology
Also, all scientific models are incomplete. If that made them useless, we'd have made no technological progress in the last thousand years or so. For instance, human systemic biology is very poorly understood, but I don't see GW deniers refusing advanced medical treatments on the basis that their efficacy is unproven.
I will also bet money that many climate deniers have invested money based on analysts' projections of future returns. It is well known that these projections are generally unreliable. I don't see any consistency in adopting a generally credulous stance to market projections and a generally incredulous stance to scientific projections. I suspect instead that it is precisely because climate deniers are invested in economic growth, which they perceive as threatened by global warming mitigation, that they adopt such transparently inconsistent rhetoric.
Can't help but wonder if el Reg trawl t'internet for these stories (making sure not to snare any dolphins in their nets) just for either:
a) good karma
b) real-world testing of the "post anonymously" tick box
c) sh!ts and giggles
I'm hoping for option C. Lucy, care to share??
Meanwhile, I'm loving Solomon's disclaimer - I might start using it!! I'm happy to leave it to the experts really. When you quiz the public on global working and ask if it's real, you get the following response:
49% - Yes it's a disaster waiting to happen
49% - No I think it's part of the Earth's natural cycle
Usually it means that only 2% of the respondants are smart enough to realise they're not smart enough to know.
All for trying to reduce the carbon emissions etc (it can't hurt, GW theories being right or wrong, if nothing else it'll save you money) but please please please don't let them politicise the issue, and let's continue the studies. I'd hate to rest on our laurels saying "yup, it's carbon emissions, let's solve that" and ignore any other possibilities that we can influence.
I say this all with good intentions while bravely ignoring the anonymous tag. Please flame gently - remember your carbon emissions! :-)
"All for trying to reduce the carbon emissions etc (it can't hurt, GW theories being right or wrong, if nothing else it'll save you money)"
At the very least it'll save you money. If global warming isn't actually happening, you get to save money and sneer at the believers later. If it is happening, you get to save money and still be around later to be sneered at (or of course claim that it was all just a natural cycle :-P).
It seems a hard point to get across to the deniers though. My entire house is lit by 10-20 watt bulbs, and family/friends agree they are as bright (or brighter) than conventional bulbs, but they still can't get past the £2-3 price tag.
Nobody complains about being cold when visiting, but they leave their thermostats set to 25.
My family with 2 adults and 2 kids manages fine with public transport and the weekly taxi for shopping, but they insist on owning (and paying for) one car each.
I think that as long as going green involves the stigma of going green, it'll be a hard sell to some people regardless of how much it can save them.
Those same climate models can't predict what has already happened in the past - good shiite there.
Mars is warming up too - damn those probes! Damn Americans are destroying Mars too! Stop them!
All bullshiite - we were all gonna die back in the 70's too - from the oncoming ice age - which was somehow caused by man too...
Wanna buy some carbon credits? I got 'em cheap - just come around to the back of my car... baaa baaa baaa! God save the Sheeple!
@Pickett, Yes Iceland is green and Greenland is white. However, Greenland has been green around the edge and supported farming and other vegetation. From what I have read, Greenland has melted around the edge but interior ice is expanding. I believe a similar situation existed in the 1930s. Climate changes with or without humans and all life must adapt to the changes or perish.
At last some science on the matter. The Climate changes, FACT. Why is another matter as this bit of research goes to show that the climate is a system so complex it makes a 45nm processor design look like something you could knock together in your garden shed.
The climate is doing what it always does, change. Get ready folks because here it comes, irrespective of you turning off your three bar heater or not.
"From what I have read, Greenland has melted around the edge but interior ice is expanding."
Can you cite your source please?
@Anonymous Coward
"...and drag us all back to the stone age"
Erm, right so Iraq didn't have universities, cars, mobile phones before the cowboys came for their oil?
Didn't George and Tony have to bomb them 'back to the stone age'?
I believe it was the Arabs that dragged us out of the stone age with trivial matters like inventing zero's and agriculture.
oh sorry! I didn't notice your coat before I clambered onto my high horse <blush>
I think it is amusing how we think we know so much about the earth. We as an evolved species have only been around for a few thousand years, and as a scientifically minded people only a few hundred years. Yet we presume that we know what the cycles of the earth are. Yes, we dump massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Yes, we are responsible for the extinction of countless species. However, we presume that we will destroy this planet through our poor management of it. I think we as a species are delusional. The planet has absolutely nothing to worry about, for we are the ones who will suffer any consequences of our poor stewardship. We as a species will be driven back to our roots, living in caves, harvesting the local flora, and clubbing the local fauna to survive. The planet will be just fine as it has been for the last 4.5 billion years. Eventually the atmosphere will revert to a more pristine state more oil will be generated from our rotted carcasses, and some knucklehead will reinvent the internal combustion engine :)
janimal, here are a couple. I recently saw a boobtube show on the National Geographic Channel that showed that a research facility built on top of the ice a few years ago is now buried deep in the ice.
"http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110405.php"
"http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_05_11_08_en.html"
The whole global warming thing is too political and emotive. I read something recently that stated that the amount of deforestation in the Amazon alone over the past 2 years caused more CO2 emmissions that all cars, planes etc over all of time. Why doesnt the government send some money to buy the forests and stop trying to prevent me flying?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
