Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
At least Lucas has principles
But its fair to say theres a lot of discussion to be had on the unanswered questions
would you want it near you?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
reg has asked me to put this cartoon up with the witty title of "a right couple of frackers".
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
funny
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Courtesy Independent...................
Scientists '95 per cent certain' that climate change is man-made
UN panel estimates sea levels could rise by 2ft 8in by the end of the century in latest draft report
Scientists are more certain than they have ever been that humans are causing climate change and
believe that sea levels could rise by up to 2ft 8in by the end of the century.
These are among the key findings likely to be published next month in the most authoritative and
comprehensive report ever conducted into climate science - the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's (IPCC) fifth assessment, known as AR5.
According to a draft of the report, the certainty that humans are the main cause of climate change
has risen to 95 per cent, from 90 per cent in the previous - fourth - assessment six years ago.
This, in turn, was a significant increase on the 66 per cent certainty reached in 2001's third
assessment and just over 50 per cent in 1995.
With every IPCC report there is a key phrase that encapsulates the latest consensus on climate
change, which scientists wrangle over for months.
Perhaps PhilipP is a Scientist ?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Iv said before I have no doubt Philip(the expert)will give an alternative view
my concern is that if the scientists who say its 95% sure its man made are correct we have to hope they are wrong
but hope if there correct wouldn't be enough
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have read the full report and it doesn't say what we are doing that causes it, just refers to man made activities.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Well of course renowned climate expert (according to Reg anyway 'cos he's in the know on all things to do with this subject) Dame Vivienne Westwood thinks that the world is about to end because of global warming. Caroline Lucas, another climate scientist according to those who think like Reg recently got herself deliberately arrested because her expertise in the practice of hydraulic fracturing for oil and coal tells her that the world will end soon as a result.
Of course these people know absolutely nothing about it at all. Westwood is a professional fashion victim and Lucas earned her degree in wimmins studies. Light years away from science but they're famous and agree with Reg et al so they must be right - right?
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
How the Pacific has paused global warming on hold (but not for long)
Although temperatures on Earth are higher than ever, the ocean is playing a major role in absorbing
excess heat, a new study suggests
Changes in the flow of heat between the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean could help to explain
the recent "pause" in global warming that has seen a fall in the rate at which global surface
temperatures has risen over the past 15 years or so, a study has suggested.
The current global warming hiatus, where the increase in global temperatures has levelled off, can
be explained at least in part by natural changes to a cold Pacific Ocean current called La Nina
which may have helped to absorb excess heat from the atmosphere, scientists said.
It is further evidence that the deep ocean may be playing a major role in helping to dampen down
temperature rises at the surface. A previous study for instance found that the heat being absorbed
by the deep ocean is equivalent to the power generated by 150 billion electric kettles.
Although global average temperatures are now higher than they have ever been since modern
records began, they have not increased as fast over the past 10 or 15 years as some climate
models have predicted, leading climate "sceptics" to claim that global warming has stopped.
Climate scientists have countered by saying that the last decades was still warmer than any previous
decade, with 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurring since 2000, and that periods of natural
variability, with temperatures falling temporarily, are always to be expected.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
according to others its not a problem
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The good news: Earth can support life for 1.75 billion years. The bad news: Climate change could
wipe us out long before that
Scientists calculate planet's leave-by date, and identify other worlds where life may develop
J
The end of the world is coming - but not for a while yet. That's according to a new study indicating
that we have 1.75 billion years left until Mother Earth gives up the ghost.
Researchers from the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences analysed other
planets outside our galaxy in an attempt to work out how long it will be before our planet becomes
uninhabitable.
The study, published today in the journal Astrobiology, examined seven planets, including Earth
to determine how their "habitable zones" will change as their stars get hotter and brighter over time.
The key factors in determining a planet's habitability are whether it is the correct distance from its
star to have liquid surface water and a temperature less than 50C.
"Within around 1.75 billion years conditions for human life will become impossible as the sun grows in size,
temperatures soar and the world's oceans evaporate," Andrew Rushby, who led the study, told The
Independent.
The research didn't specifically account for man-made climate change or the "possibility that we'll all
be wiped out by an asteroid or a nuclear war", he said. Climate change may well decimate humanity
before the concept of habitable zones become relevant.
"Of course, conditions for humans and other complex life will become impossible much sooner - and
this is being accelerated by anthropogenic climate change," he said.
Full story Independent.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Tory donor knocks the wind out of Coalition's green energy 'sales'
Supporter says the Government is missing huge investment opportunities due to its 'misleading
' eco policies
One of the Conservative party's biggest donors has launched an unprecedented attack on
George Osborne, David Cameron and Ed Davey, accusing them of squandering an opportunity
to create thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of revenues by scaring off desperately-needed
investors in the UK offshore wind industry.
Alexander Temerko, a significant British energy investor whose company Offshore Group
Newcastle builds foundations for offshore wind turbines and constructs oil and gas platforms
, is best known for being one of the 12 Tory party donors who enjoyed a private dinner with the
highest echelons of the Conservative party this spring after making donations totalling more than
£50,000. He has donated a total of £208,500 to the party in the past two years.
But he has become extremely frustrated by what he calls the Government's "hypocritical" approach
to energy policy and is dismissive of David Cameron's pledge to lead the "greenest government ever".
Full story Independent.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Philip, I find your reference to " wimmins " studies offensive. Don't be so patronising please.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
looks like more tories getting grumpy over the mouse
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Big business funds effort to discredit climate science, warns UN official
Climate change summit braced for counterblast from sceptics as report warns greenhouse gas emissions
still increasing
Big companies are paying contrarians to undermine the work of climate scientists, according to a top
UN official speaking before the release of a landmark review of climate science this weekby international
researchers next Friday.
Halldór Thorgeirsson, a director who reports to the head of the UN body that governs the on-going
high level international climate negotiations, said that scientists would need to be prepared for a
counter-blast from sceptics.
"Vested interests are paying for the discrediting of scientists all the time. We need to be ready for
that," he said.
His outspoken views will set the tone for a fractious meeting of the world's leading climate scientists,
kicking off on Monday in Stockholm, that will set out the evidence that the world's governments use
when formulating policies to deal with global warming for decades to come. More than 800 scientists have
contributed to the report, the final details of which will be hammered out in a gruelling four-day session
next week.
Full story Guardian..
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
desperatiion
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Note that this fool, Halldór Thorgeirsson, shouts and squeals like most greenies do but conveniently provides not one shred of proof in his mad, crazed, assertions.
Just as well there's the usual Armageddon-hungry Guardian readers who love this stuff along with the usual 9/11 conspiracies, overpopulation and it's all the fault of the bankers.
The joke of it is that even this clown isn't a climate scientist but he's got a snazzy job title so Reg hangs on his every word.
Remember the earth's temperature has remained the same for the past seventeen years, we've had record arctic sea ice growth, the antarctic continues to grow, there are fewer hurricanes this year than for many and so on and so forth and yet these climate clowns continue to panic the gullible.
Ho hum how our grandchildren will laugh at us in years to come.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this is a classic case where people select their chosen "experts" light the fuse then retire to a safe place.
in 20 years time reg and philip will still be arguing and i am sorry to say that if reg is right i do not have room to adopt a polar bear.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Worth a read...if you have the time.....
Whatever happened to climate change?
Despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists, the media are letting politicians off the hook - and the deniers are taking advantage
Whither global warning? Apart from a succession of puerile puns - fracking awful quips, as the Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, might have put it in his conference speech - the issue hardly raised its head at the Lib Dem gathering in Glasgow. It is not looming large on the Labour agenda in Brighton over the next few days. And David Cameron, who once bragged his would be "the greenest government ever", hasn't waved his eco-credentials for ages now.
There's irony, then, in the fact that more than 250 climate scientists meet in Stockholm tomorrow to finalise the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When it comes out on Friday it will be the most comprehensive report on climate science ever published. It will show that scientists have upped from "very likely" to "extremely likely" their judgement that it is human activity, rather than natural variations, which have caused most of the rise in global temperatures since 1951.
Since we have the irony pot on the table, let's ladle out another helping: while experts have been becoming more convinced, the rest of us have been moving in the opposite direction. The number of people in the UK who think climate change is happening, and is caused by man-made greenhouse gases, is falling, polls show.
How have we arrived at the paradox of experts and public moving in opposite directions? There are two key reasons - the complexity of the science and the simplistic nature of much media reporting, some of which is wilfully ignorant.
Friday's report will show that the interaction of human and natural influences is more complicated than was previously understood. The temperature of the planet is still rising, but not as fast as earlier predicted. The relationship between carbon emissions and global warming is not as direct as was thought. The planet is a highly sophisticated system with myriad variables. Raised temperatures are being transferred between shallow and deep levels in the ocean in ways which were unforeseen. Some organisms are adapting to changing ecosystems faster than others: Atlantic lobsters are just moving north, but polar bears are being swept to extinction.
Sadly, the press is not always very good at making sense of all this. One paper recently pronounced "Now it's Global COOLING!" because ice-cover in the Arctic has increased this year over last, but it failed to mention that last year's ice-cover was extremely low - the sixth lowest since records began. It compared measurements that were not comparable. And it failed to take into account that ice-sheets can expand in surface area while thinning in depth, rather like a dropped ice-cream melting on a pavement.
The media are full of scientifically flaky, but superficially plausible, accounts. Some say the net impact of global warming will be beneficial till 2070. Others that global warming actually stopped 15 years ago. Reporters routinely cherry-pick data out of context, confuse weather with climate, assume events disprove trends, fail to disaggregate blips in statistics and confuse the medium and long-term, and focus on detail, ignoring the bigger picture.
A recent study by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism showed that most media coverage of climate change emphasised uncertainty while a quarter focused on the supposed "positive opportunities" global warming would bring. Both these stand in stark contrast to the overwhelming consensus among scientists - 97 per cent of whom, by various measures, agree that global warming is real and a major threat.
Unsurprisingly it is the media rather than the science that is influencing public opinion. The general public finds scientific uncertainty difficult to understand. It is confused between freak weather, natural cycles and climatological changes. It cannot be expected to know that 1998, the baseline year for IPCC data, was unusually warm. Nor is the public sophisticated in its understanding of the difference between correlation and causation, between direct causation and systemic causation, or even the basic statistical principle of regression towards the mean.
So the public is swayed by media agendas. Rupert Murdoch, a man who believes what he reads in his own newspapers, from The Wall Street Journal to The Australian, has been tweeting against climate change and in favour of fracking. Small wonder that Australia's new prime minister, Tony Abbott, who once dismissed evidence of climate change as "absolute crap", has already disbanded a key climate change agency. Here BBC news outlets - normally a voice of sanity on science - are paralysed by their adversarial paradigm of giving "equal space" to both sides and have largely descended into silence on the issue.
In the background the real experts continue their endeavours. Researchers from the Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester last week delivered a high-level briefing on people affected by climate change in Bangladesh. Alexander Temerko, a big investor in offshore wind turbines - and a major donor to the Tory party - has broken ranks by publicly condemning Mr Cameron's government as "hypocritical" and demanding that real policies are put in place to encourage renewable energy.
The truth is that politicians of all parties have been distracted by the short-term exigencies of the recession and taken their eye off the biggest challenge.
Climate change is even more complicated than we had previously thought. And it is even more urgent. Our grandchildren will not thank us for our inaction. Perhaps not even our children.
Paul Vallely is visiting professor in public ethics and media at the University of Chester
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
the warnings continue to be out there
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
"Paul Vallely CMG is a leading British writer on Africa and development issues" according to wiki.
Brilliant Reg another one of your more than qualified climate scientists.
Wouldn't it be better to choose to quote someone who is actually qualified to comment on climate science, which is what this post is all about, rather than some weirdy beardy philosopher.
Oh wait just a minute he wrote Bob Geldof's biography.
Sorry, I must correct myself - he's more than qualified.
