Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[Psyber]

Apropos causes of climate change: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7015 ... i-ice-age/

Around 12,900 years ago, Earth was on a steadily warming trend.....
But just as the glaciers were beginning to retreat, and an easier life at last beckoned for Earth's small population of humans, everything went into reverse.
Temperatures fell dramatically by up to eight degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit), heralding a cruel winter that would last 1,300 years.

I've also read, and mentioned here, historical sources that mention the cooling phase that occurred between about 1100 AD and 1890 AD peaking in the 18th century, since which we have resumed the pattern of global warming referred to above. There have been papers suggesting the "Taurid Complex" referred to in this article or another similar one may have been a factor.

[fish]

"Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data. Hello? Anyone listening? Hello?":

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/ ... ing-hello/

Just another example of how the climate deniers misrepresent the facts and conjure something out of nothing to suit their own agenda.

[Psyber]

"Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data. Hello? Anyone listening? Hello?":
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/ ... ing-hello/

Just another example of how the climate deniers misrepresent the facts and conjure something out of nothing to suit their own agenda.

Are there actually any people denying climate change is occurring?
I thought the argument was about whether whether human activity was the major current cause..
But the "Climate change denier" tag keeps popping up whenever anyone asks the question about the significance of human contribution.
[I know you used "climate denier" but since you can't deny climate exists I assumed that was short hand.]
As above: "Around 12,900 years ago, Earth was on a steadily warming trend....."

[Psyber]

An interesting post script: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/718 ... -man-made/

AAP: Most unconvinced climate change man-made.

[fish]

The truth of these issues can't be decided, realistically, by the majority rules approach, but some people still try.

[Psyber]

The truth of these issues can't be decided, realistically, by the majority rules approach, but some people still try.

Yes, and I still agree with that statement, which I put up when others here seemed to be suggesting majority should rule [of the alleged experts]..
I put this post up because I think, from memory, that earlier polls had suggested more popular support for the pro-anthropogenic view, and thought it interesting that there appears to have been a recent change.
I wonder if it reflects cynicism about the failure of Copenhagen rather than anything else....
Any other ideas or theories?

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I knew that the 'Climate Change' hype would blow over eventually...

Countless millions wasted, but at least 'our greatest moral challenge' is dying a quicker death than I'd hoped...

[Gozu]

"Abbott feels heat on Jesus claim":

TONY Abbott is under pressure to justify a claim to primary school students that it was considerably warmer when Jesus was alive than it is today.

The Opposition Leader urged year 5 and 6 students at Trinity Gardens Primary School in Adelaide to be sceptical about the human contribution to climate change, saying it was an open question.

Leading scientists said there was no evidence to suggest the globe was hotter 2000 years ago. Australian Academy of Science president Kurt Lambeck said true scepticism was fine, but required looking at published data with an open mind.

''To make these glib statements to school students, I think, is wrong,'' Professor Lambeck said.

''It's not encouraging them to be sceptical, it's encouraging them to accept unsubstantiated information.''

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... -ulrw.html

[smac]

I think he's onto something - why else would everyone wear sandles? If it were cold they would have worn ugg boots, surely?

[fish]

I knew that the 'Climate Change' hype would blow over eventually...

Countless millions wasted, but at least 'our greatest moral challenge' is dying a quicker death than I'd hoped...

CC you seem to have forgotten (or conveniently ignored ) the fact that the overwhelming majority of climatologists and earth scientists have concluded that climate change is happening, that human activity is the cause, and that serious environmental, economic and social damage will result if it is not addressed immediately.

The debate these days is not whether or why it is happening, but how it can be solved in a way that is acceptable politically, socially and economically.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I knew that the 'Climate Change' hype would blow over eventually...

Countless millions wasted, but at least 'our greatest moral challenge' is dying a quicker death than I'd hoped...

CC you seem to have forgotten (or conveniently ignored ) the fact that the overwhelming majority of climatologists and earth scientists have concluded that climate change is happening, that human activity is the cause, and that serious environmental, economic and social damage will result if it is not addressed immediately.

The debate these days is not whether or why it is happening, but how it can be solved in a way that is acceptable politically, socially and economically.

I'd suggest that the overwhelming majority of people who have a vested interest in the business of climate change have concluded that climate change is happening.

Maybe you should change your avatar to 'Chicken Little'...

"We had a whole week of 38 degree plus temperatures, therefore the climate is changing"...

[Psyber]

Despite the climate fluctuation deniers activities, historical sources suggest some evidence of higher temperatures in the past, and fluctuations:
They indicate that the Romans had vineyards in Yorkshire around 200 AD.
A Welsh history I've read recently suggests temperatures about 2 degrees higher than now in about 450 AD, based on recorded agricultural/pastoral customs of the time.
Greenland was green when settled around 950 AD and the ice advanced during the period after 1100 AD.
The Thames had never been recorded as freezing over until shortly after this colder snap, but did then and several times subsequently, the tendency peaking in the mid 18th century.
In addition there is evidence of periods of lower and higher sea levels than now in the more distant past, which would imply climate fluctuation is not rare.
There is consistency between the historical sources.

One climate study I read recently suggested the world entered a warming phase about 12900 years ago, which was interrupted by a "mini ice age" between 1100 AD and the end of the 19th century, which peaked in the 18th century. This matches the historical data. The temporary cooling may be attributable to a disruption of the normal cycles by the planet passing through a field of cometary debris.
[I've posted links about this earlier in this thread.]

I am not saying this link is the "bible" as I haven't researched it myself, and only found the site today, but it is worth a read:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10783

[fish]

I'd suggest that the overwhelming majority of people who have a vested interest in the business of climate change have concluded that climate change is happening.

Maybe you should change your avatar to 'Chicken Little'...

"We had a whole week of 38 degree plus temperatures, therefore the climate is changing"...

100% unsubstantiated rubbish!

As for the pathetic insult and the quote plucked from thin air - that looks like yet another example of the deniers, having lost the scientific debate hands down, resorting to playing the man instead of the ball.

[Gozu]

"Climate Change and the Integrity of Science":

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

[Psyber]

"Climate Change and the Integrity of Science": http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

There is some absolute truth in this article:

There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.

However it then trots out the usual, now disputed, conclusions as absolute truth.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

Substituting may for will may work here, but there needs to be some support data for the truism about acidification and whether it is related to more free CO2 or some other factor:
[However, my spell checker rejects "hydrologic" for "hydrological" in the quote.]

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

There is no dispute that global warming, from any cause, if it goes far enough will do this, but if we are now entering a cooling phase, as some assert, we can all get excited about a different set of potential disasters:

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

[fish]

"Abbott feels heat on Jesus claim":

TONY Abbott is under pressure to justify a claim to primary school students that it was considerably warmer when Jesus was alive than it is today.

The Opposition Leader urged year 5 and 6 students at Trinity Gardens Primary School in Adelaide to be sceptical about the human contribution to climate change, saying it was an open question.

Leading scientists said there was no evidence to suggest the globe was hotter 2000 years ago. Australian Academy of Science president Kurt Lambeck said true scepticism was fine, but required looking at published data with an open mind.

''To make these glib statements to school students, I think, is wrong,'' Professor Lambeck said.

''It's not encouraging them to be sceptical, it's encouraging them to accept unsubstantiated information.''

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... -ulrw.html

What a disgrace peddling misinformation about climate change to schoolkids!

[Psyber]

"Abbott feels heat on Jesus claim":
TONY Abbott is under pressure to justify a claim to primary school students that it was considerably warmer when Jesus was alive than it is today.
The Opposition Leader urged year 5 and 6 students at Trinity Gardens Primary School in Adelaide to be sceptical about the human contribution to climate change, saying it was an open question.
Leading scientists said there was no evidence to suggest the globe was hotter 2000 years ago. Australian Academy of Science president Kurt Lambeck said true scepticism was fine, but required looking at published data with an open mind.
''To make these glib statements to school students, I think, is wrong,'' Professor Lambeck said.
''It's not encouraging them to be sceptical, it's encouraging them to accept unsubstantiated information.'' http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... -ulrw.html

What a disgrace peddling misinformation about climate change to schoolkids!

True, particularly without supplying evidence that will allow them to form an informed opinion about whether it is information or misinformation for themselves!

I haven't got any reliable source for figures around say 10BC and 30AD, even if Jesus existed and was anything but a deluded wanderer.
The historical evidence implying it was warmer in such a recent past, that I have found so far, relates only to the periods from about 200AD, and about 450AD, and to the cold snap between the early 1100s and the late 1800s.

The only evidence to suggest it may have been warmer at that time is that of there having been a general warming phase from 12900 years ago until about 1100AD, and again since about 1890 AD.
Of course we do have ice core and sedimentary evidence of there having been bigger mean temperature fluctuations in the more distant past, with associated sea level changes....

[Gozu]

Yeah Fish haven't you seen the movies mate, the Romans all looked pretty hot and bothered in those days!

[Psyber]

Yeah Fish haven't you seen the movies mate, the Romans all looked pretty hot and bothered in those days!

You can't believe the movies, Gozu, and the Retrospectoscope has not yet been invented, although Steven Hawking suggests it may be possible.
But there are very old land use records surviving, which are the source of information like Roman vineyards in Yorkshire around 200AD, and the patterns of cattle and sheep droving in Wales around 450AD.
[Mainly cattle, like the Americans much later in history, they rated sheep less highly than cattle in Wales in that era.]

[purch]

I knew that the 'Climate Change' hype would blow over eventually...

Countless millions wasted, but at least 'our greatest moral challenge' is dying a quicker death than I'd hoped...

CC you seem to have forgotten (or conveniently ignored ) the fact that the overwhelming majority of climatologists and earth scientists have concluded that climate change is happening, that human activity is the cause, and that serious environmental, economic and social damage will result if it is not addressed immediately.

The debate these days is not whether or why it is happening, but how it can be solved in a way that is acceptable politically, socially and economically.

And it will continue to happen, forever and ever. It is a natural process involving fluctuations in solar radiation. Our Sun is not static.

I am an earth scientist. I do believe in climate change too, just not human-induced climate change. Just about all of my Australian colleagues are with me. Even the environmental scientists that I know now concede that the science is poor. (Actually hard to call it science if you look at it critically).