Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle
German and Russian scientists say that it is normal for an interglacial period like the one just ending to finish with one or more brief - in geological terms - spells of warming before the glaciers return. According to boffins based at the Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ) and at the Russian Academy of Sciences, in …
When I was at school it was all about the ice-age returning. Then it was all about global warming. Now, again, it is about an ice-age returning.
Good thing with this complete lack of scientific consensus that they aren't trying to set taxes and financial commitments based on any of this.
Oh, wait....
This only indicates a lack of consensus in the wikipedia "all viewpoints are equal and people who shout louder and the most equal of all" way
Got to keep them thar glaciers at bay somehow!
It's not big or clever to cherry-pick the stories that support your personal viewpoint and ignore the others. How about either a more balanced coverage of GW on this site or (dare I say it), avoid this non-IT subject altogether?
I'd generally agree but in the case of climate change there is such a massively strong bias towards the 'for' camp (see my post on 'climate change deniers'), that viewpoints such as that taken by El Reg don't even begin to redress the balance.
But .....
this is a report on 1 piece of research which backs up 100's of others.
After studying all the crap on the internet i cam up with my own conclusion
Man can affect his local enviroment to a great degree and the global on a minute scale
The seasons seem to be shifting later in the year imo so yes warmer in december but colder in April :/
Im gonna go get my jacket and skis :D :D :D
Glacier ski'ing !!!
For years we've had non stop wall-to-wall Global Warming panic from the BBC (all channels, 24 hours a day), the Government, and most of the newspapers, even the Sun and the DailyFail.
Now we get a bit of unbiased balance and you're whining. Shall I get your coat for you?
Yeah it was the same with AIDS. Blanket coverage everywhere with not a nay-sayer in sight.
Fortunately there is now "unbiased balance" in that many Africans don't believe AIDS is real, but a government conspiracy to modify their sexual behaviour. After all, it's ridiculous to think that something as small as a virus particle can affect the large-scale operation of a human being.
Amazing parallels here, really.
Not that good a parallel...
For starters, its massively easier to understand what happens with the human body. For 1, its a lot better understood. For 2, its easy to observe what happens (shorter lifetimes etc). For 3, control samples are easy to come by. For 4, you could replicate outcomes.
For the climate change... 1, its not really that well understood with very contradictory evidence (note how its gone from global warming to climate change, if it was just warming then you'd have to demonstrate an increase in temperature, now its just change and change happens all the time so is self fulfilling). 2, it happens over thousands of years and is constantly changing. We've only observed a small fraction of it. 3, no other control samples as far as I am aware. Anyone found earth 2? 4, can't really replicate the outcomes. Anyone come up with a decent prediction yet that we can then observe happen?
I'm deliberately antagonising here. My frustration is that I believe that this is all part of a control mechanism. As a people we always need to have something to be fearful of... communism, natzis, terrorism from the middle-east, conservative government (joke) and now the best of all climate change. Just something to keep us all busy. Supported by the media as it sells well - its a scandal after all. Not to mention that the vested interests (Grants etc) for people supporting the 'common view'.
For me it boils down to the fact that its so complex, as humans I don't believe we can fully understand all the variables. It has too much skew based on policy and media. The scientists themselves are yet to reach agreement. IF, and I mean IF the government REALLY believed this, then why not put more radical plans in place. Why not limit cars to 50mph (most economical)? Why not put massive tax hikes on high polluting and massive incentives on environmentally friendly. Why not massively tax uneconomical flights? Yeah, sure the economy might suffer, but surely that's better than the world dying. Oh, right - its because no-one else would do it - someone's gotta be first, right?! Why not show them all that we've got some balls?! Why, because we don't believe it either.
Grrr.
Mr Ralph,
How do I say this nicely?
It may not be big or clever from your point of view to highlight certain aspects of the climate debate. You may, in fact, be right. But that doesn't mean the article lacks credence.
The article may offer a particular point of view - even lean toward a particular point of view. But all humans are biased one way or the other; the article is still worthy of the paper its written on, even if only to highlight the differences in opinion (and in this, it has succeeded). I suspect your opinion is demonstrated nicely in your own post. The fact that it doesn't match with someone else's opinion is why it is called "bias".
And, while we're here, climate may not look like an IT topic to you, but how many computers does it take to model tomorrow's local weather and still get it wrong 52% of the time? Shall we consider next week's national weather? How about the global weather situation? What about tracking hurricanes - you know, those seasonal visitors that wipe out most of Florida every third year or so?
Indeed, _how_ _many_ _computers_ does it take to number-crunch all the data available to manage a best-guess on any aspect of our climate (past, present, future, or prediction)? Any guesses? The fact that the results are then spun and statistics are used to support incorrect assumptions which are then fed to the press does not remove its relevance here. If it takes more than zero computers, it has to do with IT - it belongs here.
You don't like it? You don't think it's big or clever? You don't think it's balanced reporting? You think its cherry picking? Take a moment to consider the title of the article next time and remember that you don't have to read it. That is, unless you want to go the whole hog by unsubscribing and selecting the "balanced reporting" of The Other Red-Topped "Sensationalist" Paper to read instead....
Oh, and have a nice day.
So does this mean that all the eco firendly stuff we are doing to reduce CO2, and cut the greehouse effect, will simply bring on the glaciers faster ?
PS note to self, time to find ski's n ski boots in loft.
More likely it won't make the slightest bit of difference, other than to to lighten taxpayers' wallets.
Never has the "I'll get my coat" been more appropriate :)
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof."
I wish that there would be a change of emphasis from "Global Warming" to "Preserving Fossil Fuels".
I'm sure that nobody would deny that the amount of fossil fuels is finite, and it is quite clear that we are depleting the available reserves. We will run out, period. There can be no real denying this. What may be argued is whether it is 50 or 500 years away.
I am generally in the skeptic camp with regard to man made global warming. I believe that man's impact, though present and undeniable, is dwarfed by what Mother Earth can do on her own. I do, however, support whole-heartedly renewable fuels, because when we've used 100 million years worth of gas, oil and coal, it's not coming back in a hurry. We are treating the Earth like a big (zinc-)carbon battery, but we can't just buy another once it is exhausted as we would an Ever-Ready(tm).
I think that we should be preserving oil at least, because it is useful as a lubricant, not just as fuel. We need to balance our energy use with what enters the Earth's domain from the Sun. This is, ultimately, where all our energy comes from in one way or another.
I'm sure that many people would agree once they consider the arguments, and I believe that Governments should switch tack to this in order to persuade the populace to change their behavior.
...........be seen as the high point of the of the catastrophic, anthropogenic CO2 induced, climate change, as sermonised by the IPCC high church.
it might take several more years for the majority of the 'faithful' to begin questioning the consensus.
be seen as the human species decided to commit collective suicide because it found an excuse to keep fouling its own nest?
The climate may be changing with or without human interaction. It still makes sense to use the available resources in the most efficient manner, and if that saves our skins, it's a bonus!
It makes sense to invent more efficient, more productive energy systems. Time spent on efficiency is time wasted.
News flash: Communism is over. Sustainability is over. And you lost.
"It makes sense to invent more efficient, more productive energy systems."
Systems that use the available resources in the most efficient manner, you mean?
"Time spent on efficiency is time wasted."
Looks like we won't be getting any more efficient, more productive energy systems any time soon then.
"News flash: Communism is over"
I guess the Chinese didn't get the memo
"Sustainability is over"
YAY! Unsustainability is the future!!!
"And you lost."
Clearly :-)
Did they only just realise that we're coming out of an ice age, and that huge quantities of water being dumped into the ocean might mess up the climate a little?
Yahoo!
Please can politicians and others who are crying "the sky is falling down" please listen to rational scientific evidence like this? In 20 or 30 years time when it's clear that GW was half political hot air and half a blip on the thermometer we will look back at those who refused to listen to reason and think "what a bunch of idiots".
Further proof that our complicated planet is subject to many different cycles, some lasting 100 years, some 10,000 years. We are only human and have a lot to learn.
So is it only "rational scientific evidence" when you agree with it?
> when it's clear that GW
Shouldn't that be "if" ?
Yes, we are only human and have a lot to learn.
Oh, except about our climate, which we understand well enough to know that no measures will ever need taking to avoid the obvious and inevitable consequences of CO2 pollution. After all, it's not like we ever inadvertently fucked anything up before.
By the way, I'm being sarcastic.
This isn't your worst denial story (at least it's got "may" in it), but your quoting missed this bit of the article:
"Certainly the MIS 5e/5d transition cannot be viewed as a direct analogue of current climate developments. On the other hand, recently observed global warming proceeding under strong anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere could either reinforce or disguise the natural trends."
So they're really not trying to compare with the current situation or say anything about it, they're just pointing out why their work might be useful. You're trying too hard to make this into something it's not.
I was gong to point that any study of past trends to predict curent trends is just hogwash without an understanding of what caused those past trends and the ability to know if they are valid now.....but you read the article!
>>So they're really not trying to compare with the current situation
Yes they are, that's what they mean with "recently observed global warming ... could either reinforce or disguise the natural trends." Sounds like a comparison to me, they are just not sure what conclusions can be drawn.
You seem to be reading "cannot be viewed as a direct analogue" to mean "not analogous at all".
This is just another data point, and it needs to be put in the models if they are to be complete.
>>trying too hard to make this into something
Personally though, I find it strange to be talking about anthropogenic impact if you don't even know what the natural trends are.
The key word being "could".
But there's no anthropogenic signal in the warming (now stopped) - so why should anyone worry?
There is a hidden agenda behind current economic policy on 'climate change'; namely the fact that fossil fuel reserves are rapidly running out!
Climate change allows governments to change habits and reduce power consumption without causing the economic and social panic which would inevitably accompany official announcements on fuel shortages as a primary reason for change.
There is consequently so much propaganda and bad science in the field of paleoclimatology; I've noticed recently that the phrase "climate change denier", is being used, (in the same vein as holocaust denier), to brand anyone so obviously stupid and inconsiderate of the planet and their fellow men as to question the 'accepted fact' of man made climate change =OC
Either way it's all the same; we're all going to Hell in a handcart =O/
Governments don't change habits, prices, taxes and fines do.
"fossil fuel reserves are rapidly running out!"
I've been banging on about this since GW became fashionable, but just end up being talked to like I'm a baby killer.I don't doubt that the fossil fuels we are burning will have some sort of effect on the climate, but at the same time the real reason behind the whole GW bandwagon is to keep the presidential limo fueled for a few more years, rather than saving the planet.
Ultimately we aren't killing the planet, we just putting back the CO2 that was in the air a few million years ago.
Mines an ice cold pint
The sooner the scientific community reaches a consensus and admit they really don't have a clue what's going on and start working with an open mind, the better.
The whole Global Warming/Cooling argument is a waste. We just don't have the knowledge to work out what the climate is doing yet, keep studying it though.
Nearly everyone agrees that:
1 Energy efficiency is a good thing.
2 Pollution is a bad thing.
If they just worked on these two things the chances are they would cut down on the CO2 levels and other crap in the atmosphere with a lot less resistance from most people.
3 Uncontrolled population growth leads to over use of resourses and increases pollution.
Reducing C0<SUB>2</SUB>: It's all a smoke screen: they just want to reduce our dependence on Islamic oil & Russian Gas.
"3 Uncontrolled energy consumption leads to over use of resources and increases polution."
Even if the size of the global population remains static, energy consumption will rocket as developing nations atempt to raise the standard of living to Western levels.
So we're now in a situation where an ice age is coming ( in a few thousand years at any rate) , the sun is zooming in ( or at least it's radiation is being bounced back into the atmosphyere to heat things up ) and in order to reduce dependency on fossil fuels it is likely to become increasingly a nuclear era?
We should look out for London drowning next, I guess.
only a problem if you live by the river...
Nice to see you're all maintaining your journalistic integrity at The Reg. Keep it up.
I just wish I understood the reasoning behind it.
It's you that's not sticking to IT-related topics, strictly speaking.
Don't feel you have to, I'm sure we won't miss you.
Humans think there so important, when compared with the universe there a fart in a hurricane.
Your inability to correctly utilise an apostrophe and use of the third person reveals you as an alien!
Are your people responsible for all of this?
Some humans think that good grammar is more important than alleged global warming:
- 'There' is used as in 'It's over there.'
- 'They're' is used as a contraction of 'they are'
- 'Their' is possessive as in 'It is their view'
It's quite easy really...
The way society is dumbing down perhaps our evolution is unwinding and we will shortly revert to raw fruit and vegetables as a diet together with an arborial life style.
Raises the questionof whether we are worth saving as a species!
I don't understand why anyone is bothering to do research on the planet's climate. The governments have now got their nice tax stream (in the shape of higher car and fuel taxes) to pay for their third homes and flights to their mates' yachts -- so "CO2 is responsible for global warming!". Whatever the results of any climate change research nothing will be done now, as the taxes are already in place.
