New insights into global warming

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I agree entirely, anthropogenic effects are exaggerated, mainly because the time scale of the studies has been accelerated to fit in with the life span of the people doing the studying, and to ensure that their paper receives the plaudits they think they deserve.
Even at this moment the sun is "flipping" its magnetic poles, not as is usual, a complete reversal, but one pole has changed and the other is busy catching up.This in itself is unusual, in our limited life span, but perhaps not in universal time scales.Who knows the outcome of just this one aspect, and its possible effect on the climate. We have an idea of the effects on electromagnetic transmissions and the like, but by no means the full gamut of the possible variations.

My son works in this field having done his Masters at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He believes in it - climate change that is, I know nothing and wouldn't understand the science of it but I know him and his integrity therefore I believe what he tells me.

Now I know I am stupid Bags. I didn't understand a word of that and felt myself glazing over as I started reading. You lot are all so very clever!

The increase of the amount of CO2 in the environment as assessed in recent historical ice cores has risen massively since the industrial revolution.

"Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2).

Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years."

www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

That post is particularly for Deserving and any other global warming sceptics or deniers.

You are not alone lizg I glaze over quite frequently , however, I certainly do not think I am stupid . In fact I am very savvy when required .

It doesn't actually make any difference what is causing global warming. Manmade or natural it is causing us problems in many ways.

The solutions in both cases are to reduce the activities we undertake that are causing man-made global warming/aggravating natural global warming and otherwise develop mitigating measures to help us adjust to the changed climatic circumstances

Same here Sel. Son says global warming is happening. And he knows.

It's great how our kids know more than we do is n't it?! [grin (About some things)

Are there that many deniers around these days, apart from far right US fundamentalists that is?

I thought the discussion was more about how fast and manmade v natural causes and between those who see Armegeddon ahead of us and those who think that, as with every other major change that has faced the earth since human beings first evolved, we will find ways to adjust to living with it.

Well there's Bags is n' t there? She does enough denying for twenty of 'em!

(for Bags)

Does she? I thought she just enjoyed floating balloons and enjoying watching us all take pot shots at them.

I thought she was onto archery rather than ballooning?

How funny! The sidelink entitled "Global Warming – which side are you on?" takes you to the Hide or Flaunt thread.

There are more than two sides, of course, as is pointed out by these people: Judith Curry, an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Mike Hulme, former Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and now, I believe, at the department of Geography at King's College, London.

A couple of days ago Curry posted an article on her blog "Climate Etc" in which she discusses a chapter in Hulme's forthcoming book that he has called "Has Climategate been a good thing?" in which he explains what he understands as the effect of the release of emails between climatologists at UEA, emails which, you may remember, some people argued showed that those climatologists had not been altogether scientifically honest in their presentation of certain data at their disposal. Others argued, of course, that the emails had shown no such thing. There's plenty of guff about the episode on the internet for anyone who wants to check out the emails and make up their own mind.

Anyway, in short, Hulme specifies several reasons for various degrees of scepticism about global warming/climate change as portrayed by the mainstream media. He describes positions people take as a result of these reasons. He also says this: The populist notion that all climate sceptics are either in the pay of oil barons or are right-wing ideologues, as is suggested for example by studies such as Oreskes and Conway (2011), cannot be sustained.

Flick, what has most struck me about GN response to the threads I start with links to science articles or scientific blog posts, is not the shooting down but the almost complete and utter inertia. However, several times people have said that they enjoy reading what I post on such threads, and the links, so I carry on posting when I find something interesting. It concerns me not one jot whether people like or dislike the posts. I put them out there for people to read (and comment on if they like) or to ignore. As they wish.
Every now and then, as recently, someone who posts about little else (as is her right) charges in, blasts them and me, and buggers off into the ether again. That, I have to admit, is quite amusing, but provoking that is not my reason for posting, as I'm sure you really know.

I like your links Bags please carry on. Now I'm off to see if me and a bow mesh?

Have fun, galen!

[i think]

I like your posts, Bags but am not enough of a scientist to be able to comment in any depth. But again, I like reading what (most!) other scientifically minded GNs say - I like to learn.

And I enjoy the literary ones Ariadne though I wouldn't dream of joining in!
I think it's safe to assume that if people actively don't like what's being posted, they'll say so - so carry on Bags I like your articles too.

I like them too (well, most of them), although I don't always understand them . They are interesting and informative, and I'm not too old to learn.

Just because we don't all join in these serious discussions, doesn't mean that they aren't being read and considered.

I enjoy your posts too Bags they are thought provoking and usually send me off to find out more, mostly with interesting results!

Oh!!! I see what you mean about floating balloons and letting people take pot shots at them!!! Very good.