Is climate change caused by carbon emissions, new evidence appears to show not.

But is the chain of events already underway. Yes we need to change our use of resources, but we also need to prepare for the likelihood certain events have already begun that we can not reverse.

It could very well be that higher CO2 levels may be the catalyst in a greater meterological event.

It could well be, but it could also counteract a global cooling event that is around the corner triggered by eg sunspot inactivity.
To me there are just too many unknowns. It's an area I wish I had more time to look into.

I was listening to some climate expert" who"s name escapes me at the mo "and he reckons that the temperatures in the Atlantic ocean are getting colder and if that were  true wouldn"t it dispel the melting ice caps theory.

But is the chain of events already underway. Yes we need to change our use of resources, but we also need to prepare for the likelihood certain events have already begun that we can not reverse.

Looks as if we have little choice in the matter racer.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html

This graph was created from BEST data by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I am suspicious of this group but doubt they would do something so blatantly biased as to alter the BEST data.
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php

Of course the argument may well be that other variant factors (eg cloud cover, el ninos) are overwhelming the CO2 effect currently and once these factors change again the warming will resume.

The graph did surprise me, so I thought I'd share it on this thread.

Its caused by the new world order

The Black Sheep Ale is working I see 

If I remember correctly, that graph closely correlates solar activity, with solar activity having a lead time until the effects were translated into weather patterns.

Here's recent solar activity:



There's not been much variance in solar activity recently.

   MAJOR 'BERG FORMING IN ANTARCTICA

 Scientists are monitoring the birth of a monster iceberg in West Antarctica.

A rift has formed in the shelf of floating in front of the Pine Island Glacier (PIG).
 
The surface crack in the PIG runs for almost 30km (20 miles), is 60m (200 ft deep) and is growing every day.

US space agency (NASA) researchers expect the eventual 'berg to cover an area of 800 sq km - equivalent to the size of Brazil. It
should break away towards the end of the year or early 2012.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/giant-crack-glimpsed-antarctic-ice-sheet-214426767.html         

No significant trend shows up in the Antartic ice as far as I can see. Ice will build up in some parts, fall off in others (sometimes as huge icebergs).

Accepted but coincidentally it is one of the more dramatic indications of planet warming.
The phenomenon referred to earlier involves a massive glacial loss and the Sea Ice Anomaly graph no doubt refers to icebergs of various masses in the Southern Hemisphere - mass being the key word and is what makes the Pine Island Glacier event so alarming.

An interesting visual presentation from the BBC
BBC News - Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers
http://bbc.in/mY3oVL

I still don't see such propaganda as being evidence for man-made global warming. The temperature of the Earth has always changed and always will.


The IPCC's 2007 report said that the Himalayan glaciers could well be gone by 2035, since exposed to be bollocks and embarrassingly admitted so by the IPCC.

I totally accept the statement about the fluctuating temperature of the earth, what I endeavour to point out is the ingredient of human influence in any premise of that nature.
Man's fossil fuel pollution, atomic activity (which is an alarm clock pollutant for future generations) etc is out of control if indeed there ever was any and to dismiss the fact is bordering on perverse, if I may say so.

I totally agree with you about the disgraceful and out of control emissions that we as humans are responsible for. We need to curb such emissions but we are not doing so because we are obsessed with a non-poisonous gas (carbon dioxide) that may or may not be doing harm. There is even a case that a slight warming of the Earth may cause agricultural benefits because warmer temperatures and better photosynthesis would assist plant growth. I would be much more bothered if we faced global cooling.

Slightly off topic:
      Air Quality 'Puts Lives at Risk'

The governments failure to meet EU standards on air pollution is putting the health of UK residents at risk", says the Environmental Audit Committee.
 Bad air quality costs the nation £8.5-£20bn per year via poor health it says and can cut life expectancy by years.
Continued failure to meet EU standards could result in swingeing fines.
The committee says ministers' "apparent tactic" to avoid fines is to ask the European Commission for repeated extensions rather than curb pollution.

The lengths governments and their backers will go in avoiding curbs on pollution is unbelievable, the above article tells in black and white how they are willing to shorten people's lives without a second thought, it is not unfeasable therefore that destroying the planet's resources would not present any moral challenges to these monsters.   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183

And for the future, the [IPCC] draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability"

It seems like the next IPCC report will be less confident about man's effect than previous reports.

Do you not think there is the remotest  possibility that the refusal by these people to recognise the obvious is financially inspired?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183

It seems like the next IPCC report will be less confident about man's effect than previous reports.

The reference to the IPCC draft confirms what I suspected, it is disingenous waffle. It talks about comparing projected changes in climate extremes when the changes referred to are both subject to a degree of human influence, which makes any comparison null and void.
No comparison of any properties can be made when either or both are subject to extrordinary influences.

Do you not think there is the remotest  possibility that the refusal by these people to recognise the obvious is financially inspired?

I do look critically at both sides of the argument to see who is looking to gain financially at a cost to the planet and to individual people.

So for example, when I hear of wind powered schemes, that I am dubious about receiving big grants, I am concerned or when I hear people from the oil industry saying there is no evidence of AGW I don't trust their motives.

The world is full of greedy people who would argue black is white if they make a profit out of it. It's vital we are all open minded and don't just trust the opinion of one person or group because we don't always know who is funding that person or group.

Finchie, less than 3% of money raised by "green" taxes is put into environmentally sound projects - the rest is pissed away by the government.

It started under brown, and has continued with the current lot

As always, if you want to know a little more truth about something, follow the money.

The argument should not be whether its carbon, CO2 emissions, methane, hydrogen, chemical or biological reasons.  The argument should be how to stop it.

Its always the one person who goes against the grain that seems to get the most press.  If one climatologist says that Global Warming is a myth, the press jump on it for the controversy.  Unless you are a complete moron and are completely incapable of doing even the littlest research, you will see that global warming is happening.  Just look at the billions of satellite Images showing a steady and progressive melting of the polar caps, melting of numerous glaciers on every continent and the melting of thousands of mountain peaks that are historically covered by snow.  All these changes can be directly linked to the start of the Industrial revolution.

Thats it.  Their should be no debate. It is happening and will continue to happen until its stopped.  We as in "Humanity" are destroying the planet.

These detractors who say its not happening are f***in idiots and for whatever reason feel its better to ignore it and claim its not happening than to view it themselves. You can look at charts and diagrams and read one report that contradicts another report and on and on and on... Historic amounts of glacier ice are disappearing, traditional feeding areas for numerous animals at the Poles are now gone, migration routes of the penguins, seals and whales have changed, birds are migrating to different areas, Polar Bears have lost feeding and mating areas, spawning and migrating routes of fish have changed. 

Their is just to much change going on than too just call it an abnormality or a Normal Climatic Shift...Our planet goes through natural changes thats a fact, but changes happen over 1000's of years not decades. 

It does seem a bit too quick Yank, but then again records don"t go back too far and there is evidence that Mammoths were frozen to death while grazing , for that to happen there must have been a supercool storm, one things for sure we"re not helping matters .

Their is just to much change going on than too just call it an abnormality or a Normal Climatic Shift...Our planet goes through natural changes thats a fact, but changes happen over 1000's of years not decades.

Yank_LFC_FAN, how do you know that climate change hasn't in history occurred over decades or is that just your opinion?

Global warming is bollocks, well its not, but its f**k all to do with our c02 emissions etc, the whole solar system is warming, Jupiters warming, Saturn's warming, Mars is warming etc etc.

Yank_LFC_FAN, how do you know that climate change hasn't in history occurred over decades or is that just your opinion?

Because it doesnt....At least not in the terms of climate changes affecting the entire planet.  Now certain Ecosystems like Rainforests and Jungle systems can go through a short climate shift if the wildlife and fundamental Bio-species of that ecosystem are changed, such as deforestation.  But never in recorded history has their ever been a sustained dual pole, climate shift, either heating or cooling that has taken place in less than 200 years.

That's still sounding like just an opinion. What sources of data/scientific paper/journal article tell you this?

It is an acknowledged fact and has been verified in this very topic that the speed of climatic change is occuring at a comparibly faster rate than any recorded phenomenon or fossil study suggests.