Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle German and Russian scientists say that it is normal for an interglacial period like the one just ending to finish with one or more brief - in geological terms - spells of warming before the glaciers return. According to boffins based at the Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ) and at the Russian Academy of Sciences, in …
When I was at school it was all about the ice-age returning. Then it was all about global warming. Now, again, it is about an ice-age returning.
Good thing with this complete lack of scientific consensus that they aren't trying to set taxes and financial commitments based on any of this.
Oh, wait....
But .....
this is a report on 1 piece of research which backs up 100's of others.
After studying all the crap on the internet i cam up with my own conclusion
Man can affect his local enviroment to a great degree and the global on a minute scale
The seasons seem to be shifting later in the year imo so yes warmer in december but colder in April :/
Im gonna go get my jacket and skis :D :D :D
Glacier ski'ing !!!
For years we've had non stop wall-to-wall Global Warming panic from the BBC (all channels, 24 hours a day), the Government, and most of the newspapers, even the Sun and the DailyFail.
Now we get a bit of unbiased balance and you're whining. Shall I get your coat for you?
Yeah it was the same with AIDS. Blanket coverage everywhere with not a nay-sayer in sight.
Fortunately there is now "unbiased balance" in that many Africans don't believe AIDS is real, but a government conspiracy to modify their sexual behaviour. After all, it's ridiculous to think that something as small as a virus particle can affect the large-scale operation of a human being.
Amazing parallels here, really.
Not that good a parallel...
For starters, its massively easier to understand what happens with the human body. For 1, its a lot better understood. For 2, its easy to observe what happens (shorter lifetimes etc). For 3, control samples are easy to come by. For 4, you could replicate outcomes.
For the climate change... 1, its not really that well understood with very contradictory evidence (note how its gone from global warming to climate change, if it was just warming then you'd have to demonstrate an increase in temperature, now its just change and change happens all the time so is self fulfilling). 2, it happens over thousands of years and is constantly changing. We've only observed a small fraction of it. 3, no other control samples as far as I am aware. Anyone found earth 2? 4, can't really replicate the outcomes. Anyone come up with a decent prediction yet that we can then observe happen?
I'm deliberately antagonising here. My frustration is that I believe that this is all part of a control mechanism. As a people we always need to have something to be fearful of... communism, natzis, terrorism from the middle-east, conservative government (joke) and now the best of all climate change. Just something to keep us all busy. Supported by the media as it sells well - its a scandal after all. Not to mention that the vested interests (Grants etc) for people supporting the 'common view'.
For me it boils down to the fact that its so complex, as humans I don't believe we can fully understand all the variables. It has too much skew based on policy and media. The scientists themselves are yet to reach agreement. IF, and I mean IF the government REALLY believed this, then why not put more radical plans in place. Why not limit cars to 50mph (most economical)? Why not put massive tax hikes on high polluting and massive incentives on environmentally friendly. Why not massively tax uneconomical flights? Yeah, sure the economy might suffer, but surely that's better than the world dying. Oh, right - its because no-one else would do it - someone's gotta be first, right?! Why not show them all that we've got some balls?! Why, because we don't believe it either.
Grrr.
Mr Ralph,
How do I say this nicely?
It may not be big or clever from your point of view to highlight certain aspects of the climate debate. You may, in fact, be right. But that doesn't mean the article lacks credence.
The article may offer a particular point of view - even lean toward a particular point of view. But all humans are biased one way or the other; the article is still worthy of the paper its written on, even if only to highlight the differences in opinion (and in this, it has succeeded). I suspect your opinion is demonstrated nicely in your own post. The fact that it doesn't match with someone else's opinion is why it is called "bias".
And, while we're here, climate may not look like an IT topic to you, but how many computers does it take to model tomorrow's local weather and still get it wrong 52% of the time? Shall we consider next week's national weather? How about the global weather situation? What about tracking hurricanes - you know, those seasonal visitors that wipe out most of Florida every third year or so?
Indeed, _how_ _many_ _computers_ does it take to number-crunch all the data available to manage a best-guess on any aspect of our climate (past, present, future, or prediction)? Any guesses? The fact that the results are then spun and statistics are used to support incorrect assumptions which are then fed to the press does not remove its relevance here. If it takes more than zero computers, it has to do with IT - it belongs here.
You don't like it? You don't think it's big or clever? You don't think it's balanced reporting? You think its cherry picking? Take a moment to consider the title of the article next time and remember that you don't have to read it. That is, unless you want to go the whole hog by unsubscribing and selecting the "balanced reporting" of The Other Red-Topped "Sensationalist" Paper to read instead....
Oh, and have a nice day.
I wish that there would be a change of emphasis from "Global Warming" to "Preserving Fossil Fuels".
I'm sure that nobody would deny that the amount of fossil fuels is finite, and it is quite clear that we are depleting the available reserves. We will run out, period. There can be no real denying this. What may be argued is whether it is 50 or 500 years away.
I am generally in the skeptic camp with regard to man made global warming. I believe that man's impact, though present and undeniable, is dwarfed by what Mother Earth can do on her own. I do, however, support whole-heartedly renewable fuels, because when we've used 100 million years worth of gas, oil and coal, it's not coming back in a hurry. We are treating the Earth like a big (zinc-)carbon battery, but we can't just buy another once it is exhausted as we would an Ever-Ready(tm).
I think that we should be preserving oil at least, because it is useful as a lubricant, not just as fuel. We need to balance our energy use with what enters the Earth's domain from the Sun. This is, ultimately, where all our energy comes from in one way or another.
I'm sure that many people would agree once they consider the arguments, and I believe that Governments should switch tack to this in order to persuade the populace to change their behavior.
be seen as the human species decided to commit collective suicide because it found an excuse to keep fouling its own nest?
The climate may be changing with or without human interaction. It still makes sense to use the available resources in the most efficient manner, and if that saves our skins, it's a bonus!
"It makes sense to invent more efficient, more productive energy systems."
Systems that use the available resources in the most efficient manner, you mean?
"Time spent on efficiency is time wasted."
Looks like we won't be getting any more efficient, more productive energy systems any time soon then.
"News flash: Communism is over"
I guess the Chinese didn't get the memo
"Sustainability is over"
YAY! Unsustainability is the future!!!
"And you lost."
Clearly :-)
Please can politicians and others who are crying "the sky is falling down" please listen to rational scientific evidence like this? In 20 or 30 years time when it's clear that GW was half political hot air and half a blip on the thermometer we will look back at those who refused to listen to reason and think "what a bunch of idiots".
Further proof that our complicated planet is subject to many different cycles, some lasting 100 years, some 10,000 years. We are only human and have a lot to learn.
Yes, we are only human and have a lot to learn.
Oh, except about our climate, which we understand well enough to know that no measures will ever need taking to avoid the obvious and inevitable consequences of CO2 pollution. After all, it's not like we ever inadvertently fucked anything up before.
By the way, I'm being sarcastic.
This isn't your worst denial story (at least it's got "may" in it), but your quoting missed this bit of the article:
"Certainly the MIS 5e/5d transition cannot be viewed as a direct analogue of current climate developments. On the other hand, recently observed global warming proceeding under strong anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere could either reinforce or disguise the natural trends."
So they're really not trying to compare with the current situation or say anything about it, they're just pointing out why their work might be useful. You're trying too hard to make this into something it's not.
>>So they're really not trying to compare with the current situation
Yes they are, that's what they mean with "recently observed global warming ... could either reinforce or disguise the natural trends." Sounds like a comparison to me, they are just not sure what conclusions can be drawn.
You seem to be reading "cannot be viewed as a direct analogue" to mean "not analogous at all".
This is just another data point, and it needs to be put in the models if they are to be complete.
>>trying too hard to make this into something
Personally though, I find it strange to be talking about anthropogenic impact if you don't even know what the natural trends are.
There is a hidden agenda behind current economic policy on 'climate change'; namely the fact that fossil fuel reserves are rapidly running out!
Climate change allows governments to change habits and reduce power consumption without causing the economic and social panic which would inevitably accompany official announcements on fuel shortages as a primary reason for change.
There is consequently so much propaganda and bad science in the field of paleoclimatology; I've noticed recently that the phrase "climate change denier", is being used, (in the same vein as holocaust denier), to brand anyone so obviously stupid and inconsiderate of the planet and their fellow men as to question the 'accepted fact' of man made climate change =OC
Either way it's all the same; we're all going to Hell in a handcart =O/
"fossil fuel reserves are rapidly running out!"
I've been banging on about this since GW became fashionable, but just end up being talked to like I'm a baby killer.I don't doubt that the fossil fuels we are burning will have some sort of effect on the climate, but at the same time the real reason behind the whole GW bandwagon is to keep the presidential limo fueled for a few more years, rather than saving the planet.
Ultimately we aren't killing the planet, we just putting back the CO2 that was in the air a few million years ago.
Mines an ice cold pint
The sooner the scientific community reaches a consensus and admit they really don't have a clue what's going on and start working with an open mind, the better.
The whole Global Warming/Cooling argument is a waste. We just don't have the knowledge to work out what the climate is doing yet, keep studying it though.
Nearly everyone agrees that:
1 Energy efficiency is a good thing.
2 Pollution is a bad thing.
If they just worked on these two things the chances are they would cut down on the CO2 levels and other crap in the atmosphere with a lot less resistance from most people.
So we're now in a situation where an ice age is coming ( in a few thousand years at any rate) , the sun is zooming in ( or at least it's radiation is being bounced back into the atmosphyere to heat things up ) and in order to reduce dependency on fossil fuels it is likely to become increasingly a nuclear era?
We should look out for London drowning next, I guess.
I don't understand why anyone is bothering to do research on the planet's climate. The governments have now got their nice tax stream (in the shape of higher car and fuel taxes) to pay for their third homes and flights to their mates' yachts -- so "CO2 is responsible for global warming!". Whatever the results of any climate change research nothing will be done now, as the taxes are already in place.
I totally agree about this bias against climate change going on at this damned rag. It's not so much the entire rag but this and a few other writers. I'm actually shocked that commenting is allowed, it's just usually shut off so they can spout crap and run without fear of getting a beat down.
Just because there are record lows now doesn't mean anything..it's a damned AVERAGE! Also, the fscked up cold and floods and weird environmental anomalies are part of the climate change concept. Yes, things will get more screwed as mother nature is fucked with, not just a freak seasonal cooling. WANKERS DAMMIT!!! AHHHHHH!!!!
Oh, really?
So cold means global warming. That's convenient, since there hasn't been a statistical significant increase for 15 years, and only 1 degree last century. Hurricanes haven't increased in frequency, the sea level rise is what it was, Greenland is still whiter than it was 900 years ago... there's nothing weird here at all.
Bit of a superstitious Charlie, aren't you?
the ice-age is cyclical yes? then according to my understanding were either at the start or the end of an ice-age coz were certainly in one right now - although bloody feels like it on the way to m&s for sandwich today!
on the bigger subject (bigger than ice-age?!?!) of GW its must be hell of a job measuring what is actually happening coz theres always going to be all sorts of multiple cyclical fluctuations going and finding a baseline must be pretty close to impossible.
so in conclusion lets do the sensible thing - dont rape the planet! but were a greedy species so basically were fucked! heyho
We can't predict the weather on a daily basis let alone work out at what point in the cycle of climate change we are in so there is hardly enough scientific backup to suggest that; Firstly, we are definitely causing the planet to warm. Secondly, that this is a bad thing to do. And finally, reducing our CO2 emissions will definitely prevent this.
Climate change is not new, the earth has been both hotter and colder in the past but we have no real concept of it other than what we know right know in human timescales.
What is undisputed however, is that we are selfishly and carelessly raping the planet of resources without any real thought outside of our limited concept of time. What is also undisputed is that this is not something that can go on forever, it's neither healthy or sustainable.
So regardless of the bloody global warming factor, we probably want to be looking for renewable energy and so on for that reason alone. And maybe 'global warming' is the econmic vehicle to make this happen?
"What is undisputed however, is that we are selfishly and carelessly raping the planet of resources without any real thought outside of our limited concept of time. What is also undisputed is that this is not something that can go on forever, it's neither healthy or sustainable..."
All this CAN be disputed, and was disputed very successfully by Paul Simon, who comprehensively disproved the whole idea of resource limitations. It CAN go on forever - he proved it...
Which is hardly surprising when you think about it - resources are never destroyed - they are typically dug up, used, then thrown away and buried again. The only issue is the price at which it becomes more economic to dig them up from disposal sites, or from the raw ore...
"resources are never destroyed - they are typically dug up, used, then thrown away and buried again"
Material is, but stored energy is another matter altogether. Without an alternative source of a *lot* of energy, we can't reverse the entropy change associated with current usage. And currently we are pissing away key resources & fossil fuel without having a workable Plan B (and think of what we need for fertiliser for food).
Renewable energy is unlikely to cut it, e.g. do the simple math for wind versus a typical coal power plant, and add in the energy to build and maintain the wind turbines as well. Nuclear fission could, but longer term, that is both dirty and limited fuel supply. Short of working large scale fusion plants, we are buggered.
"..Nuclear fission could, but longer term, that is both dirty and limited fuel supply..."
Where do you get the idea that nuclear fission is dirty and has a limited fuel supply? The industry has the least amount of waste of all major industries - it is well controlled, and could, if necessary, be reprocessed into new fuel...
At the same time, fuel sources like Thorium are virtually unlimited. Just as well, because come the Ice Age, unless we have sorted out how to run fusion, we will be needing fission reactors by the thousands....
Flame for the nuclear fires which we had better adopt pretty rapidly....
(Don't follow the weather reports to pass judgment on this year's winter. Europe and Eastern US are getting buried in snow. I'm having one of the warmest winters on record. It IS all about averages and longer term trends.)
The main thrust of AGW denial has been in the form of 'The world is NOT getting warmer...'
The thrust of this article is, "Well the world may actually be getting warmer but man is not to be blamed..."
Perhaps the oil lobby is starting to see the weak data behind the Anti-AGW arguments and this is a way to admit the world is getting warmer without having to actually do anything about it.
(Paris because she knows a good... Well, you figure it out.)
@Rob Foster:
AGW proponents say humans are to blame for "Climate Change." Others claim we are not to blame for Climate Change. The idiots are the ones who say "the climate is not changing." Sorted.
@the CO2 Anon. Coward of: "reducing our CO2 emissions will definitely prevent this":
NASA reported that CO2 was not sufficient enough, on its own, to change the climate, but that ASH (or other types of particulates of such nature), were the most likely culprit of any climate change. So I'd be more worried about volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and other dirty-burning/releasing of ash-like particulates. Perhaps put a filter on your campfire next time?
Seriously, you don't seem to grasp the size of the situation.
Humanity dumps about 130 TIMES the amount of CO2 that volcanoes do EVERY YEAR into the atmosphere. Since this is old news, we've likely graduated to 150 times the volcanic emissions.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
This kind of careless consumption is what is upsetting the balance nature had before we started burning everything that we could find.
If you doubt human caused GW is real, go check out some REAL sources of information. Media outlets are proving they care about ratings more than honesty, so I'd recommend tracking down and verifying your sources. I would suggest doing some researching before you spout off whatever you heard or worse found on some blog.
Another myth I see touted a lot is that "the earth has been going through cooling and warming cycles for billions of years". But they don't typically happen in spans of less than thousands of years, we're pushing it in decades.
Life needs time to adapt to changing conditions, including our food crops.
All this "climate change = us being bad" is complete propaganda, put out for what reason I don't know.
I rather suspect it's part of the governements plans to reduce out dependancy on oil produced overseas were all the wars are going on at the moment, and to make a reason for us to all be "energy efficent" so they don't have to bother upgrade infastructure (power stations) and blaming us for it all because they can't be bothered to control the population (immigration) to a sustainable level to fit within the infastructure we have.
Not saying energy efficency is a bad thing though, or reducing our need for oil when there is something suitable to repace it. But whats with the trying to make us guilty like we just stabbed a cat or something???
Like many growing up in the 70s, I was also taught that percieved wisdom shows that the Ice Age cometh. Thankfully, due some particularily wonderful Physics and Chemistry teachers, I was also taught that science is nothing about opinion and all about fact. And that ultimately, time itself will show those facts (or their consequences) quite plainly.
Either the Ice Age will come as (originally) predicted, or it won't. There's sod all that even the huge populace of advanced apes can effectively do about it.
There is sooooooo much that we petty insignificant earthlings know about the universe, that there's no hope in hell of achieving anything more than a good-guess on our rock's climate.
And that good-guess can only be achieved through observation of the facts, and interpretation based on testing hypotheis'.
If we can get to a point where even our much criticised MPs can say "hang on a minute, your scientific methods are a bit iffy", then we are a long way from ever achieving a realistic, scientific based consensus.
It is pointless to be pro, or anti, climate change theories. It is only worthwhile understanding that the wost that can happen is a severe depopulation of some species, including the arrogant apes that think so highly of themselves. Anything else is a bonus.
So stop bleating and start enjoying life.
And if you really want to make a difference. Go become a resarch scientist, fix the bad peer-review and hope you manage to stumble on the answer before you die.
Think of it this way, we've been around for but a tiny fraction of the lifetime of the earth. We've been studying climate for a tiny fraction of the time we've been around.
It's actually impossible for us to have gathered enough data in that short period to have any idea what we're talking about when it comes to the earth's climate.
Seriously, all we can do, for now, is take wild guesses.
So anyone who throws around statements like "global warming is definitely happening" or "humans are (./are not) causing global warming", is talking shite.
The fact is, we just don't know yet. There's not enough data. We haven't been studying it for long enough.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
