Frozen Planet

[AllanL]

Don't worry Ian, just get a tinfoil hat. That keeps out the global warming, signals from the green lizards, mind reading by the Daily Mail, and any stories that deny the existence of Princess Di's Palace on Mars. I swear by mine, you can have a loan if you like.

Let me see: Christopher Booker, Nigel Lawson & David Icke vs 1,000s of peer reviewed scientific papers.

My money is probably on the evil shape-shifting lizard-people from the 4th dimension. (I did marry one after all)

If any rational scientist could prove via peer reviewed analysis that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change was phoney they would walk off with a Nobel Prize.

The Berkeley Earth Project was set up to review surface temperature records from 1.6 billion records and is composed largely of physicists outside of the climate community.

Recently they announced their initial findings which confirmed the analysis behind the IPCC reports. The data and findings are on their website.

Whether you accept the science or not, there is no getting round the fact that existing conventional oil fields will run out in about 40 years. Furthermore we have been using the stuff faster than we have been finding replacement capacity offshore or in unconventional (i.e. difficult and expensive) sources every year since 1984.

Mr Micawber had a phrase for that approach to using resources.

Tinfoil for hats is running out too

p.s. Yet another brilliant series by David Attenborough, so much better than his appearances in Ghandi and the Great Escape. Seems to have put on some height too.

[speedbird591]

Ah. That explains everything! I think

I had a look at the Berkeley Earth Project - like you said. O, I see they're funded by the US Department of Energy - but I'm sure their findings are non-political It's great that this group of eminent scientists looked at all the pre-existing billions of statistics and analysed them differently to all the other groups of eminent scientists. But so far they seem to have come up with the same conclusion, as per this chart that I grabbed off their site (hope they don't mind )



But they're hoping that later on they'll be able to change the results by finding some statistics that suit them better.

FAQ: It appears that Berkeley Earth's analysis shows a temperature rise greater than others had previously published. Is this so? Can you explain?

Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less.

So I'm sure with a bit of work and some taxpayers' money they'll come up with the results they're looking for.

Meanwhile, all I know is:

There are photos of receding glaciers
People aren't buying winter clothes
There are no more polar bears around here than last year

(Sorry Allan. I hope you'll forgive me for playing Devil's Advocate. I know it's a serious subject but it's far too complicated for me to have an opinion on. I'll keep recycling and cycling and await further instructions ...)

Ian

[DarrenL]

The Berkeley Earth Project graph is displaying incomplete statistical data to conveniently prove their point (or guarantee their government grant for another year). Why are they only showing data from 1950 to the present day, would it have something to do with previous years data showing that the Earth's natural temperature is cyclical and has gone up and down many times before.

Here's the graph expanded, you will notice the red line which is the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit who were found to have been manipulating data to bolster their own argument in 2009.

Graph by Roy W. Spencer a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre in Huntsville, Alabama.

As for getting a Nobel Prize for proving AGW has had no effect, no one has received a Nobel Prize for proving it does exist either. Al Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) received their Nobel Peace (not Physics) Prize for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Plus all the errors in Nobel winner Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" used. Here's a few, "Lake Chad drying up” - But it also dried up in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC. "Thermohaline circulation stopping” - In reality, it is strengthening. "Arctic warming fastest” - It’s actually 1 degree cooler now than in 1940. "West Nile virus in the US spread through ‘global warming’” - West Nile virus flourishes in any climate, from desert to ice. "Sahara desert drying” - In the past 25 years, the Sahara shrunk by 300,000 square kilometres due to increased rainfall. There are many others too, over 30 used to spread fear amongst the real tin foil hat brigade.

Although Nobel Prize winning Physicists do resign from the APS (American Physical Society) in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring." - http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/ ... ist-re.htm

Evidence for AGW can only be global climate data with a visible and causal human signal and there has never been any global climate (temperature) data with a visible causal human signal in any IPCC report. As mentioned here by Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."



But anyway back to Attenborough's series. Loved the very intelligent Killer Whales working as a team to solve a complex puzzle of how to get the seal off the ice.

[speedbird591]

I surrender! I'll just keep calm, carry on and await further instructions

But anyway back to Attenborough's series. Loved the very intelligent Killer Whales working as a team to solve a complex puzzle of how to get the seal off the ice.

Yes, that was a fantastic sequence but they've got a lot of evolving to do to reach our advanced solution of sending out of work fishermen to club them to death, hey?

Cheers for all the info, Darren. Especially the chart which I interpret to show that the Greenlanders can expect an imminent re-invasion of Vikings

Ian

[AllanL]

Some discussions will never end in agreement, but if the current politicians can at least be persuaded to get their short-term heads out of their fat *rses and kick the carbon fuel habit, before it runs out and forces us to kick it, then that is all that matters.

If your knees are in better nick than mine Ian, just keep peddling -you'll end up in better shape and health than most of us.

[simondix]

Whether you put climate change down to carbon emissions or not the fact is we are emitting too much anyway and should reduce it considerably. Perhaps the Polar Bear rise is due to not so much hunting pressure. Anyway if the numbers build up too much, they are sociable at certain times of year, so as the icecap melts they can share an iceberg.

As to the science it is interesting on both sides to see where the funding for the research or the seat of learning comes from.

[Airspeed]

quote Darren "They know the US won't buy those lies......"

So you'd see a tree looming in your windscreen, and say "It's natural, been there for 200 years."
I think I'd turn the steering wheel or try the brakes.
Read about Easter Island, we never learn.