back to article Ice core shows Antarctic Peninsula warming is nothing unusual

New ice core data from the Antarctic Peninsula has revealed that temperatures in the region during the past 10,000 years have often been higher than they are today, and that warming of the sort seen there recently has also occurred in the pre-industrial past. The new data are derived from a massive new 364m-long core extracted …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Naadir Jeewa

    At least quote the conclusion

    "The long-term climate history provided by the JRI ice core shows that natural millennial-scale climate variability has resulted in warming on the eastern Antarctic Peninsula that has been ongoing for a number of centuries and had left ice shelves in this area vulnerable to collapse during the recent phase of rapid warming. If warming continues in this region, as is suggested by its attribution in part to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations7, 23, then temperatures will soon exceed the stable conditions that persisted in the eastern Antarctic Peninsula for most of the Holocene. The association between atmospheric temperature and ice-shelf stability in the past demonstrates that as warming continues ice-shelf vulnerability is likely to progress farther southwards along the Antarctic Peninsula coast to affect ice shelves that have been stable throughout the Holocene, and may make them particularly susceptible to changes in oceanographic forcing"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: At least quote the conclusion

      "If warming continues in this region, as is suggested by its attribution in part to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations7, 23, then temperatures will soon exceed the stable conditions that persisted in the eastern Antarctic Peninsula for most of the Holocene."

      1. That conclusion isn't supported by the data. The data shows significantly larger temperature anomalies without the loss of stability.

      2. No time period is given. Does the author mean if the warming continues for a decade, a century, a millennium?

      3. No value is given for the amount of warming before instability. Is it 1C, 2C, 4C, 8C? If its 1C then there might be something to worry about if it is 8C then there isn't anything to worry about as that scenario is so unlikely we would be better of worrying about a meteorite strike.

      4. We have no idea on what part CO2 has actually played in the current Antarctica Peninsula warming and what part is down to: a) Natural variation, b) Building runways, erecting buildings, running sight seeing tours and then locating the majority of the temperature sensors there.

      1. Some Beggar
        Facepalm

        Re: At least quote the conclusion

        "That conclusion isn't supported by the data."

        I'm relieved that we have an unqualified and anonymous internaut to draw conclusions from some low resolution example graphs rather than having to rely on the conclusions of the scientists who performed the research or the scientists who reviewed the paper.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: At least quote the conclusion

          Nice argumentum ad verecundiam. Can you actually counter what the anon is saying though?

          1. Some Beggar
            FAIL

            Re: At least quote the conclusion

            And that's a nice use of the dreary internet staple of throwing in some half-understood latin to make yourself feel clever. An argument from authority is perfectly valid when the authority is a genuine expert on the subject matter. The authors and reviewers of a scientific paper are clearly genuine experts on their own work.

            I am quite happy to stand by the assertion that their conclusions are better than those of an anonymous internaut.

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: At least quote the conclusion

              Conclusion: "If warming continues in this region, as is suggested by its attribution in part to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations7, 23, hen temperatures will soon exceed the stable conditions that persisted in the eastern Antarctic Peninsula for most of the Holocene."

              anonymous internaut: "1. That conclusion isn't supported by the data. The data shows significantly larger temperature anomalies without the loss of stability.

              Read carefully to spot anonymous internaut's sleight of hand.

              Wonder how they got so many upvotes

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: At least quote the conclusion

                Well, if paid shills say what there masters want them to say (so they continue to receive funding), then their supposed "expert opinion" is probably worthless than that of any anonymous commentator as they are quite likely deliberately distorting what they say.

                In other words, experts, schmexperts , not worth listening to until they start practicing science not pay -for-say religion.

              2. Some Beggar

                Re: At least quote the conclusion

                "Wonder how they got so many upvotes"

                Clicking a button and grunting is easier than reading the article.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: At least quote the conclusion

              I used Latin because it's a well understood phrase. Your appeal to authority isn't valid however. You haven't refuted any of anon's points. You've just assumed anon is wrong and the authors of the paper are right because they're scientists. Hence, argumentum ad verecundiam.

              1. Some Beggar
                FAIL

                Re: At least quote the conclusion

                I've assumed the authors of the paper are legitimate authorities on the contents of their own paper. That's an entirely valid use of argument from authority.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

                It may be a well understood phrase, but you don't appear to be amongst the group that understands it.

      2. NomNomNom

        Re: At least quote the conclusion

        "1. That conclusion isn't supported by the data. The data shows significantly larger temperature anomalies without the loss of stability."

        No they don't. Which data are you looking at? The projected warming this century from rising greenhouse gases surpasses all temperatures on that graph.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: At least quote the conclusion

      Sounds a bit like a sop to the grant-providers who fervently (religiously) believe in warming.

      Having said that this warming has precedents, they are giving the obligatory bow to AGW)

  2. Thomas 18
    Boffin

    Panic Over

    So can we finally shelf this research area and start worrying about the asteroids and colonisation.

  3. MassiveBob
    FAIL

    An Inconvenient Truth?

    For Al Gore....

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    At long bloody last...

    Someone else stating this whole bloody nonsense as religion. I remember when green was a colour...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: At long bloody last...

      And how do you think the Black Country got it's name?

    2. Beau
      Unhappy

      Re: At long bloody last...

      In Belgium "Green" is definitely a popular and powerful religion.

      The result is, any politicians who want any chance of getting elected, now have to be fully paid up members of the "Green Church." Their policies are often quite amazing, but not always amusing.

  5. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    Boffin

    A very important point!!!

    Was the press release peer-reviewed?

    If not, why is anyone listening to it?

    1. Grikath
      Boffin

      Re: A very important point!!!

      Because the press release is cut down to sentences of less than 20 words, with words containing less than 3 syllables, and no concepts that require anything over highschool education, making it suitable for the general populace of "the Press" who are generally Liberal Arts grads.

    2. Don Jefe

      Re: A very important point!!!

      What difference would it make? LP never reads the actual journal articles anyway. He's more of a 3rd party abstract kinda guy.

      1. itzman
        FAIL

        Re: A very important point!!!

        what a stupid thing to say. He couldn't have drawn the conclusions he has without reading the articles.

        Did YOU actually read the articles?

    3. Perimeter Wall
      Mushroom

      Re: A very important point!!!

      I believe it was reviewed as evidenced by the published timestamps.

      Nature

      (2012)

      doi:10.1038/nature11391

      Received

      11 November 2011

      Accepted

      29 June 2012

      Published online

      22 August 2012

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11391.html

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good science or bad science?

    First let me say I'm not a scientist, just a IT guy who likes to know how things work. Shoot me down in flames for being a member of the great unwashed if you like.

    So I look at the report and consider that if the data and their analysis is correct it is a data point contrary to the weight of evidence pointing the other way.

    Does that mean it's wrong, or does that mean the contrary view is wrong? No: on it's own it cannot prove anything. If the data and the analysis is correct, it means there is something we don't understand.

    So let's not jump on the bandwagon and make accusations about either side of the argument. Let's recognize this for what it is: an anomaly that doesn't fit our understanding and can't at presently be explained.

    That in itself makes it important and worth more investigation; but it doesn't make it conclusive, so let's not make it so eh?

    1. Tom 13

      Re: No: on it's own it cannot prove anything.

      Except it doesn't stand on its own. There are lots of other data points out there just like this one. Each of which has been denounced by the Warmists as at least a lone data point which proves nothing if not being denounced as outright heresy. And which when taken together indicate a political bias that overrides the scientific data.

  7. Lord Voldemortgage

    I'm not an expert

    nor a true believer from either side of the polarised debate so bear with me.

    Would I be right in thinking that the fact that temperature variations on this scale have happened before is only comforting if the current variation is not caused by something that is new to the equation?

    By which I mean if there's a new sort of temperature variation and the possibility of a 'natural' one too then there might be unpleasantness if the two coincided - is that right?

    Or does this research also demonstrate that the reason it has happened before is the same reason it is happening now?

    -

    I realise this is the last place to be asking for clarification on this sort of topic but I am not sure where I should be asking - at least here I can expect to be guided to the far boundaries either side of the truth which sort of helps define the area to look in.

    1. Tom Graham

      Re: I'm not an expert

      If the current temperature variation is within the range of what has happened naturally in the past, then it is statistically insignificant.

      If what is happening now is shown to be in line with what has happened in the past, then there is no reason to the that what is happening now is due to some new "unpleasantness".

      Or put another way, if we can explain the current temperature variation we do see as being down to the natural historical tendency for temperatures on Earth to vary over time, why would we need to think up any other reason to explain it? Occam's razor.

      The conclusion quoted above seems to be saying:

      "The present variation we are seeing is nothing outside of historical norms, and does not indicate a threat to the stability of the ice sheets. But if there were to be more temperature change in the future at a rate that was faster than the current or historical norm, then this could be bad."

      So what?

      1. Lord Voldemortgage

        Re: I'm not an expert

        "if we can explain the current temperature variation we do see as being down to the natural historical tendency for temperatures on Earth to vary over time, why would we need to think up any other reason to explain it?"

        Thanks, but that is rather begging the question.

        Can we explain the current temperature variation in that way?

        1. Tom Graham

          Re: I'm not an expert

          Er, yes we can.

          If the current variation in temperature is within the bounds of historic natural variation, as recorded in the ice core, then of course it can be explained as being just natural variation. In fact this is the best explanation according to the principle of Occams razor.

          What is so hard to understand?

          They don't teach science good these days.

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: I'm not an expert

            "If the current variation in temperature is within the bounds of historic natural variation, as recorded in the ice core, then of course it can be explained as being just natural variation. In fact this is the best explanation according to the principle of Occams razor."

            "Natural variation" is not an explanation and so it cannot be selected using Occam's razor. An explanation requires a mechanism. "Natural variation" is just a "it happened somehow" non-explanation.

            Here's an actual explanation: The reason why it was warmer in the early holocene is because the Earth's tilt meant more incoming sunlight at higher latitudes in summer months.

            The only problem is that doesn't explain the recent warming. As it stands the best explanation available really is greenhouse warming.

    2. Jim O'Reilly

      Re: I'm not an expert

      You are sort of right. But turn the question around. Why think something new is happening when the evidence is that this is no different than many times in the past?

      I think the obnoxious part of this whole debate is the (self-serving) rush to judgement of scientists and press that AGW is the cause of what could very easily be a random fluctuation.

      We've had too many instances of ClimateGate disclosures, where data was 'interpreted' to fit AGW (if not downright faked. I think that alone is enough to make me skeptical. If the data showed real support for the theory of AGW, it would not need to be faked.

      It would all be very amusing, except that bureaucrats and politicians want to spend billions of our money to be seen as 'Green". Shame on them!!!!!

      1. Lord Voldemortgage

        Re: I'm not an expert

        " Why think something new is happening when the evidence is that this is no different than many times in the past?"

        I wouldn't assume something new is happening but equally it seems wrong, or at least premature, to assume the contrary.

        I am all in favour of Occam's Razor but I don't think we have enough facts to know which approach makes the fewest assumptions.

        If we are sure that we know how these temperature variations were caused in the past and also sure that the same conditions exist now then it is clear that assuming any further contributory factors is unnecessary.

        If, however, the conditions now are significantly different from those known to have caused previous variations in temperature then an assumption of a new factor is the parsimonious approach.

        If the cause of previous variations is unknown then Occam might guide us one way but prudence perhaps might suggest not relying too strongly on that guidance.

      2. indulis
        Mushroom

        There is no such thing as "natural" or "random" variation

        Unless you are playing around with quantum effects at the atomic level or smaller, "natural" variations aren't random. They are subject to cause and effect. The bulk property of a system such as the earth isn't subject to "randomness"- the 1 atom bomb per minute of energy increase in the oceans since 1950 isn't some "natural" variation or "randomness".

        Anyone putting forward the glib statement "the current warming could just be natural variation" is anti-science in the worst way. Not only does this statement imply that observations of climate are unknowable by science (i.e. no point in trying to understand and model cause and effect), but it also attempts to demolish the work of the people who are doing their best to understand the processes at work.

        The "natural variations" crowd are like believers in "intelligent design" (creationists). They too explain changes based on unknowable forces at work, which cannot be analysed and understood by man.

        The climate changes observed in the past have been investigated, and while the warming is not unprecedented, the rate of warming is unprecedented. And the known causes for previous warming periods (with subsequent uncomfortable sea rises, climate changes, and mass extinctions) aren't happening now. Which only leaves CO2 or magic (call it "randomness" if you like).

        If you believe there is some fuzzy hand-waving, "natural variation" magic at work which somehow accumulates huge quantities of energy in the planet's climate system, you have no business thinking you are an analytical and rational person who believes in science.

        1. John Angelico
          Stop

          Re: There is no such thing as "natural" or "random" variation

          <blockquote>The "natural variations" crowd are like believers in "intelligent design" (creationists). They too explain changes based on unknowable forces at work, which cannot be analysed and understood by man.</blockquote>

          Oh, er do you mean unknowable forces, akin to unknowable substances like "dark matter", Oort clouds as a source of comets, and so forth?

          I thought I heard someone whispering "unicorn"...

  8. John Galt

    A longer history of sea level

    A google of:

    "sea level change last 250 million years"

    should provide a long textbook PDF on sea level for the last 5-6% of the earth's history. It's got nice graphs showing how much both the amplitude and rate of change vary over time.

    Relative to the earth's age, 20,000 years is the blink of an eye.

    There's lots more literature for anyone who is actually interested in facts.

    The climate has always changed.

    1. Lord Voldemortgage

      "The climate has always changed."

      No doubt this is true but we haven't always had to live in it.

      1. itzman
        Headmaster

        No doubt this is true but we haven't always had to live in it.

        Er, yes we have. I know of no place man has lived that hasn't had a climate.

        Apart from Islington maybe, where the carbon footprint of an entire Caribbean island is dedicated to eliminating all climate change from man's habitations.

        And the history books are littered with civilisations that have come, prospered and then vanished when the climate changed.

        I'll admit that not one of them ever used fossil fuel, though. Or drove 4x4s. They didn't exist on a methane emitting diet of brown rice muesli and bean sprouts either, and ride bicycles that made* their heads all pointy shaped.

        *since nearly all cyclists have these pointy shaped heads, in the best traditions of the IPCC one may conclude to 3 sigma that the bicycles are definitely the cause of pointy headedness.

      2. El Richard Thomas

        We don't have to live in it now. If the climate changes such that it is no longer suitable for Homo sapiens then we will become extinct and some other species will take our place. The Earth will go on.

      3. Alan W. Rateliff, II
        Paris Hilton

        Relatively speaking...

        "No doubt this is true but we haven't always had to live in it."

        Indeed. We've not been here but for a fly's fart-worth of time relative to the age of the planet, and only been massively industrialized for around a couple of hundred years. Our own existence as a modern human species has survived many changes in climate and we've been forced to adapt. Perhaps old times were simpler when we accepted that nature and Gods were out of our control and adapted to meet the demands put upon us rather than assume that our scientific understanding or faith in such makes us more knowledgeable and powerful than the universe, nature, and various Gods. With great hubris comes great cost.

        From what I can tell, our industrialization is simply coincidental with natural climate trends of a planet we've known for only a small percentage of its life, the history of which we have to make conclusions which have tendencies to change over time. Given this potential, I recall a phrase from methods: "Correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation."

        Paris, neither necessary nor sufficient.

  9. conan
    WTF?

    Agenda?

    Why is the Register always pushing a climate-sceptic agenda these days? All the articles are about how climate change isn't happening, or it's no different to usual, or it's not man-made or whatever. Has anyone else noticed this bias emerging?

    After Fukushima it was refreshing to see El Reg's coverage of the Japanese response suggesting that it was very good, that the systems coped well and that it should be an advert for nuclear power; all the other press I saw was writing it off as a catastrophe. In this case though, there is loads of press saying climate change isn't that bad, so I'm not really sure why the Register is pushing this so hard - it's not an alternative viewpoint.

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: Agenda?

      Surely an alternative viewpoint, to be valid, should look at the facts? There are lots of screwball sites out ther if you just want 'Alternative' viewpoints to things- qv Moon Hoax, JFK, 911 etc.

    2. Waspy
      Megaphone

      Re: Agenda?

      Groups like Greenpeace really don't make it easy to convince skeptics (or even militant skeptics/deniers like Lewis) - as discussed on a previously much more balanced article about geothermal power by Andrew, groups like Greenpeace et al are simply political lobby groups now who are just as dogmatic as people like Lewis. All we end up with is an endless cherry-picking war of attrition where both side most of the time are sticking their fingers in their ears.

      Greens need to become more pragmatic and realise that things like nuclear power, clean gas burning and geoengineering isn't necessarily bad (it isn't ideal but wind power is hardly going to produce the world's required energy at this point in time) and will will do until we can design cleaner systems, and deniers like Lewis need to stop jumping on every shred of isolated data that defend their worldview and ideology and look at the thing holistically...it isn't some sort of conspiracy by governments to elicit more tax from the populace.

      Yes, there are plenty of parroting, dimwitted greens who cannot think for themselves, but there are also plenty of parroting dimwitted conservatives who don't want to change a thing and want business as usual.

    3. Howard 1
      Facepalm

      Re: Agenda?

      Because... who do you think is the editor?

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Olivreghw
        Megaphone

        Re: Agenda?

        "I don't know that the Register has an editorial bias. Lewis (and to a degree Andrew Orlowski) do seem to though."

        Lewis doesn't SEEM TO have an editorial bias. He HAS an editorial bias.

        I could describe it as an 'greenophobia'. Every 'green' speaking is just wrong for him.

        Does climate change is happening ? No. Well maybe yes, but not so much, not because of us. It's a big green fascistic conspiracy...

        Fukushima ? Great event, all was well, nobody was hurt, no contamination in food and fishes etc.... In a few month when global memory will fade he will probably write an article about the FACT that fukushima didn't happened.

        I don't know why I keep reading his articles, some masochism probably.

    5. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: Agenda?

      "Why is the Register always pushing a climate-sceptic agenda these days? All the articles are about how climate change isn't happening, or it's no different to usual, or it's not man-made or whatever. Has anyone else noticed this bias emerging?"

      That's unfair to El Reg. Look at who writes the articles. It's always Lewis and Andrew. Lewis especially leaps on anything vaguely supportive of his views and tries to turn it into a story; often incorrectly.

      It's crap, and it's really tainting the entire publication. We can't go more than a week without Lewis shoving his politics down our gullets, on an entirely non-IT related subject.

      I really hope some anti-climate change publication make Lewis a job offer that he can't refuse so, so that we can shift the focus back onto IT and knob puns.

      1. David Pollard

        Re: Agenda?

        "I really hope some anti-climate change publication make Lewis a job offer that he can't refuse..."

        Some might suggest that application of Occam's Razor indicates they already have.

    6. James Smith 3

      Re: Agenda?

      In my experience it's quite rare for the mainstream news outlets to stray from the standard pro-AGW reporting. So, yes, the Reg is alternative. Mind you, it appears that Roger Harrabin is starting to get bored of drinking the kool aid in this article about the use of the word "unprecedented" that relates to recent reports about Arctic melting:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19269571

    7. Anakin
      Mushroom

      Re: Agenda?

      Maybe because they don't belive in the religius part of the climat politic and publish whatewer FACTS that come to the surface.

    8. This post has been deleted by its author

    9. Osgard Leach
      FAIL

      Re: Agenda?

      Lewis is a Parish Vicar of the new dogma so can't afford to be balanced or logical. He has his Holy Trinity to sustain.

      Weapons, High Technology and Acronyms.

      Sometimes all three come together in one project and he can be seen facing West towards the Pentagon, bowing down and gibbering ecstatically.

      Does make The Reg look silly on some big issues but that's religion for you.

  10. Naich
    Meh

    Mmmm. Pies...

    Lewis Page must have a huge amount of pies in his house, with the amount of cherry picking he does.

    1. JayB
      FAIL

      Re: Mmmm. Pies...

      "Lewis Page must have a huge amount of pies in his house, with the amount of cherry picking he does."

      And yet you support the massive cherry picking and outright lies by Pro "Mankind is Evil" Climate Change theorists?

      I'd love to point out the flaw in that but I think I'd be wasting my breath.. or fingers... whichever.

      1. Howard 1

        Re: Mmmm. Pies...

        Climate Change is not a 'theory'. AGW is a 'theory'. Climate Change is a FACT.

        1. Ron70

          Re: Mmmm. Pies...

          "Climate Change is not a 'theory'"

          True, but ["Mankind is Evil" Climate Change] is.

        2. nsld
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Mmmm. Pies...

          "Climate Change is a FACT"

          No it isnt, climate variability is certainly a fact, but change has a degree of permanence when the reality is we are seeing massive variability. Look at our shit summer for example, its certainly been variable but I doubt its a permanent change.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mmmm. Pies...

          "Climate Change is a FACT."

          Climate change is, of course, undeniable. That climate change will occur as a result of natural events and cycles alone is also undeniable, by all save the insane. Anthropogenic forcing has yet to be proven the sole villain of the piece.

          Without doubt, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2007 simply served to demonstrate the fallacy of being rooted too firmly to one side of the fence. Unfortunately 'science' such as that presented in AR4 - which is littered with deliberate misrepresentations, misquotes, arithmetic errors, near outrageous proven falsehoods, selective editing of sources, unsubstantiated claims and false claims does little, except to provoke disdain for such 'science'.

          In as much as any religion which holds a near pathological fear of opposing or challenging views is flawed, so is any science that holds similar pathological fears - whichever side of the fence they may sit on.

          Once the 'religion' (which is undoubtedly ingrained within the climate debate) is removed, society and science alike may start to have an adult discussion based on absolute fact - and not deliberately misrepresented fact, as in AR4, for example. Until then I welcome articles such as this.

          1. Wilco 1
            WTF?

            Re: Mmmm. Pies...

            Would you care to provide citations for all the "deliberate misrepresentations, misquotes, arithmetic errors, near outrageous proven falsehoods, selective editing of sources, unsubstantiated claims and false claims" in AR4?

            Without evidence your claim is simply an outright lie.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Mmmm. Pies...

              "Without evidence your claim is simply an outright lie."

              And without evidence to the contrary your assertion of a lie is just, er... an assertion :)

              But for you, it will likely remain an outright lie, until you do your own research. All you have to do is seek. It is alas not within my remit to do your research for you.

              Google is your friend, or mine as the case may be. I politely suggest you try it. As a starting point I have just located this, will could serve as a possible starting point for your own research:

              https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc

              You may also like to read what Judith Curry (Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) has to say about the wider ranging climate debate and the IPCC.

              Unfortunately the debate around anthropogenic forcing is more about politics and scientific religion than absolute science. Therein lies the problem. Scientific heresy has been invaluable to mankind's progress over the centuries - and it still is.

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                "Unfortunately the debate around anthropogenic forcing is more about politics"

                Yeah thanks to people like you Mike Hock and your amazing unsupported rants.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Facepalm

                  Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                  "Yeah thanks to people like you Mike Hock and your amazing unsupported rants."

                  Lol. I'll take that as an uneducated compliment. Thank you ;)

                  But no. It's not a rant by any means. Rant: (noun) extravagant, or violent declamation. There's nothing extravagant and no violent declamation in my posts - unless of course my comments offend your position.

                  What is however wholly unsupported is your assertion that my 'rant' is unsupported. In fact, as I have just posted hereinabove, my 'rant' is actually supported - and in a large number of papers - thereby negating any validity you believe your comment holds

                  1. Tom 13

                    Re: ...unless of course my comments offend your position.

                    You must be new here. Anything that does not adhere to Warmist dogma offends him and is not of The Body.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: ...unless of course my comments offend your position.

                      I fear that you may be right Sir :)

                  2. NomNomNom

                    Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                    You just said "blah blah blah judith curry"

                    You are grossly exaggerating the faults of the IPCC for political gain and you probably know it.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                      "You are grossly exaggerating the faults of the IPCC for political gain and you probably know it."

                      I would be a liar if I said that your accusation would, if it were true (which it is not), somewhat amuse my sensibilities.

                      It is not I who 'exaggerates the faults' of the IPCC. I merely acted as a conduit for the opinion of other (probably) more educated people than you and I.

                      To paraphrase a Planetary Science lecturer of mine from many moons ago... 'A wise man questions, a fool simply believes what he is told.'

                      1. NomNomNom

                        Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                        "I merely acted as a conduit for the opinion of other (probably) more educated people than you and I."

                        "'A wise man questions, a fool simply believes what he is told.'"

                        If you really question what you've been told by these "more educated people", you didn't show it.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                          " If you really question what you've been told by these "more educated people", you didn't show it."

                          Am I to understand that as 'If I don't question the motives and conclusions of anthropogenic forcing detractors, then I am wrong'?

                          But anyway, question I do. I do not sit squarely with either camp of the debate.

                          As with most domestic and emotional arguments that occur in daily life, I am of the mindset that, where opinion, debate and science is highly polarised, the heart of the truth is often to be found somewhere 'in the middle'.

                          As for the "more educated people" (I note that you changed the context with the selective omission of the preceding 'probably') I would proffer that I am correct. Yes, I have post-graduate qualifications in both Physics and Astronomy & Planetary Science, but I can assure you that some papers I have encountered on the subject matter are written by individuals both far more qualified and intelligent than I. If the same cannot be said for you, then I apologise O Great One :) Otherwise my statement stands as fact.

                          Oh, and this is not sarcasm, but thank you for helping to brighten up my otherwise boring afternoon.

                          1. NomNomNom
                            Trollface

                            Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                            no problem. i like pies

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Happy

                              Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                              Earlier when you said " Mike Hock and your amazing unsupported rants." I scan read that as 'Mike Hock and his amazing unsupported pants'.... I thought you had some word play going on there for a moment :)

              2. Wilco 1

                Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                Mike, given that you made the claim, it is for you to provide the hard evidence to support your claim, which is frankly ridiculous. You didn't provide anything concrete at all, so I conclude you cannot even provide one quote from AR4 which has been proven false. That's typical for deniers, it's all hot air without any substance.

                I have already done my own research and have concluded the scientists and IPCC are right. If anything they are a bit too conservative, it is looking we will end up with the more extreme scenarios due to inaction, the "burn, baby burn" attitude and deniers.

                1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

                  Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                  I have already done my own research and have concluded the scientists and IPCC are right. If anything they are a bit too conservative, it is looking we will end up with the more extreme scenarios due to inaction, the "burn, baby burn" attitude and deniers.

                  Others, though, have done the same and concluded the opposite, which is neither right or wrong given the poor quality of some of the research out there. Why not present some evidence yourself rather than concluding that it's all hot air without any substance which incidentally is what a few of us deniers currently think of AGW.

                  Actually, I wouldn't class myself as a denier per-se, in that I'm not in a fixed position. I'll consider the evidence as it becomes available, and my conclusion might change. The problem is (as I've said before), the likes of ClimateGate seriously impacted the credibility of research, they could be 100% right but after being seen to massage stats it's going to be 1000% times harder to convince people that the conclusions are accurate.

                  1. Wilco 1
                    Boffin

                    Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                    Ben, here is a good resource: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

                    It addresses all the fallacies, lies and hot air from the deniers with hard facts in a way which is easy to understand. The fact is that all the research points to the same conclusion, including research done by skeptics (such as the BEST studies).

                    It's funny you bring up "ClimateGate". Given that 3 separate investigations concluded they did do nothing wrong (most definitely not massaging stats), and 2 BEST studies produced the same hockey stick graph despite using different methods, it would be impossible to claim there is any doubt left unless you are a hardcore denier.

                    Are you similarly unconvinced about everything else in science? Things like evolution, physics, gravity etc? Do you also need more data and evidence before you accept those theories? If not, why make an exception for climate science?

                    Also can you explain what exactly is wrong with energy efficiency, cheap renewable energy, and the resulting energy independence? Even without climate change we will have to achieve that as the oil won't last forever while our energy needs are going up exponentially.

                    1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

                      Re: Mmmm. Pies...

                      Thanks for the link, adding it to my reading list now, having had a quick scan I love the "It's satellite microwave transmissions" myth, sadly I'm sure someone has claimed it at some point. So having not had time to read fully;

                      Also can you explain what exactly is wrong with energy efficiency, cheap renewable energy, and the resulting energy independence?

                      There's absolutely nothing wrong with energy efficiency, and everyone should be practicing it even if just to reduce their bills. Cheap renewable energy on the other hand, doesn't exist. There's nothing cheap about the current tech, and it's looking like it'll be some time before prices come down. If we want cheap(ish) power we either need to stick with coal/gas (which isn't going to be good for the environment whether you accept AGW or not) or we need to go the nuclear route. What we can least afford to do is to pansy about trying to build windmills that aren't capable of sustaining our current demands, let alone our future demands.

                      And before you point to health risks etc, I fully accept that there are 'hidden' costs, but at the moment what the country needs is a reliable form of power so that we don't have the delight of rolling blackouts. Personally, I'd prefer they'd build some more nukes, but there isn't much chance of that at the moment!

                      Are you similarly unconvinced about everything else in science? Things like evolution, physics, gravity etc? Do you also need more data and evidence before you accept those theories? If not, why make an exception for climate science?

                      The simple answer, because I currently have grave concerns about the apparent methodology used by those researching 'climate science'. I'm trying hard to keep an open mind, but it aint half hard with some of the things that have gone on. I'd also point out that everything else you list has had far, far more study in a scientific manner than so-called climate science.

                      It's funny you bring up "ClimateGate". Given that 3 separate investigations concluded they did do nothing wrong (most definitely not massaging stats), and 2 BEST studies produced the same hockey stick graph despite using different methods, it would be impossible to claim there is any doubt left unless you are a hardcore denier.

                      IIRC one of the concerns was that the raw data wasn't available, and that it was therefore impossible to reproduce their methodology to confirm the results. It may not be 'massaging' but it's one hell of a scientific failure. However, I'll accept your premise and we'll assume for the minute that the results are valid and have been confirmed by 2 further studies. A scientific mind still would not consider it impossible to claim there is any doubt left, there is a correlation between results but more is needed to consider it even close to a certainty (which it must be if doubt is impossible - which it never is).

        4. Tom 13

          Re: Climate Change is not a 'theory'...Climate Change is a FACT.

          Well, it might have been before the Warmists got hold of it and converted it into a Holy Hand Grenade. Now it's just another attempt to subjugate the masses into adhering to their religion.

  11. Steve Pettifer
    Stop

    "Global warming may, as may climate scientists believe it is, be set to increase disastrously in the coming century: but there's no particular sign of it to be seen at the Peninsula, now that we have an accurate insight into the area's past history."

    Errr...yes there is. It's mentioned in several places in the article that warming of 2C has been seen 50 or so years close to the peninsula. Lewis needs to learn not to confuse the terms 'global warming', 'climate change' and 'anthropomorphic climate change' as each has a distinct and different meaning. In fact, the term 'global warming' is pretty meaningless in any kind of serious discussion because there is no such thing. What we have is climate change (which means some areas may actually get colder rather than warmer, i.e the climate changes rather than the temperature simply increasing which are emphatically not the same thing). Global warming is simply a shit term coined by lazy, moronic, scare-mongering journalists in pursuit of a sensationalist story. Climate change, however, is very much a concern we must take seriously in our own interests, if nothing else.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Climate change is a fact of life and has been for every generation.

      The climate has always changed which is why there are periods like the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum. Even if these were only local phenomenon it still shows a continuously changing climate.

      Global warming is not a meaningless term when you are trying to blame climate changes on CO2. If CO2 is as potent as some claim then this will be reflected in an extraordinary increase in temperature globally, even though some places might be cooler. If CO2 is not as potent then any global change of temperature will be within natural variations.

      The climate will change whether we pump more or less CO2 into the atmosphere, the only thing we can do is adapt.

      1. Steve Pettifer

        Trust me, 'global warming' IS a meaningless term. It was not born of science and nor is it a term ever used by any genuine scientist. The issue about the climate changing, NOT just temperature and NOT always in the positive. Trying to legitimise that term by pointing to average temperature increases over-simplifies the problem to the point of triviality. That may be fine for the tabloids but not in any discussion which aspires to even a modicum of intelligence.

        And I don't think anyone (here at least!) is denying the global climate has always been, and will always be, in a state of flux; certainly I didn't. What we're really interested in is the difference between climate change (i.e. that which occurs whether we like it or not) and anthropomorphic climate change which is down to us farting out whatever we damn well pleased in ever increasing quantities for several hundred years. Temperature is only one factor that is affected, no less important for that, but people need to understand that it's not the be all and end all.

        In truth, I suspect we're actually arguing the same point overall, but it is important to ensure that the terms used are correct.

        1. Tom 13

          @Steve Pettifer: If you wanted to keep 'climate change' as a scientific term,

          you needed to keep the Warmists out of it. Now that they've recognized that their lies about AGW have been exposed and seized on 'climate change' as their mantra, it's too late.

      2. Glyph
        Boffin

        Options

        "The climate will change whether we pump more or less CO2 into the atmosphere, the only thing we can do is adapt."

        The climate will change, but we *can* do something besides adapt. We can fight back. We should make the world we live on, the one we want to live on. A study has been recently proposed in which ships would spray saltwater high into the atmosphere causing low level cloud formation and subsequent cooling. This is only the latest in a long line of climate engineering proposals. I am sure we will make some mistakes, but being in control reduces more risks than it creates.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Options

          > spray saltwater high into the atmosphere causing low level cloud formation and subsequent cooling.

          Studies have also shown that low level cloud formation affects cloud formation at other levels in the atmosphere (and vice versa). Since the impact of clouds on temperature/climate is one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science, doing this might cause an increase in temperature.

        2. Alan W. Rateliff, II
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Options

          I up-voted you because I believe you are very artfully trolling by playing on human arrogance.

          "...being in control reduces more risks than it creates."

          Paris, she sees what you did there.

  12. Karcsi

    So it tells us nothing new?

    We have no idea what caused the temperature changes in the past, other than they were not man-made. It only tells us that the current changes could be natural. Even if we did know the causes of the past changes, we would have to prove that the same conditions apply now before man-made causes could start to be eliminated. But we don't. So what's new?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So it tells us nothing new?

      > we would have to prove that the same conditions apply now before man-made causes could start to be eliminated.

      Err no.

      The hypothesis (it doesn't qualify as a theory) is that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will significantly increase global temperature.

      You have to prove the hypothesis, not the other way around.

      1. Ben Tasker Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: So it tells us nothing new?

        The hypothesis (it doesn't qualify as a theory) is that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will significantly increase global temperature.

        There's only one way to be sure........... doubt you'll convince anyone to fund that though!

    2. Identity
      Boffin

      Re: So it tells us nothing new?

      Indeed! Glee and Joy! One side of the argument has found evidence that temperatures were higher before civilization (and probably man) existed. But what do we really know about that time? Were there, say, volcanoes? And now that we've added industrial effluent to natural variation, mightn't we expect some additional change?

  13. Dan Paul
    Devil

    Lewis is only providing an opposite but valid Skeptic viewpoint that counters the AGW PR

    Nearly every article produced by so called "Scientists" seems to have a very pronounced slant towards AGW. As LP says in the last paragraph "more reminiscent of religion than science".

    Lewis Page and Andrew Orlowski provide needed counterpoint to those articles.

    In this Nature article, it is quite apparent that the press release headlines and leader paragraphs are exacerbating fear/uncertainty/doubt at the expense of unbiased reporting, not unlike the Register or any other magazine does to grab attention.

    The actual articles in Nature seem to only "mildly" contradict the headlines so where is the truth? The graphs certainly show something that contradicts the AGW argument that mankind is the sole cause of warming.

    The "Truth" sure does not appear to be presented in Nature magazine that much is certain.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lewis is only providing an opposite but valid Skeptic viewpoint that counters the AGW PR

      "Nearly every article produced by so called "Scientists" seems to have a very pronounced slant towards AGW. As LP says in the last paragraph "more reminiscent of religion than science".

      Lewis Page and Andrew Orlowski provide needed counterpoint to those articles."

      Call me Mr. Fussypants, but I always prefer my scientific articles to be written by those "so-called scientists" and their "so called PhDs and years of study in the field" than by those with no professional experience in the field, no qualifications in the field, with amazing amounts of bias who don't so much as cherry-pick as twist the meaning of data and have an enormous axe to grind.

  14. deadlockvictim Silver badge

    ecological hell

    Can we all agree the Lewis Page will end up in Ecological Hell by being made to serve on the Rainbow Warrior against honest fishermen trying to earn a honest wage from the sea's good bounty?

    1. Ron70

      Re: ecological hell

      No.

  15. Downside
    Linux

    The only truth..

    is that hydrocarbon resources are scarce enough to continually increase in cost to a point where most people cannot readily afford them. This should limit CO2 commissions nicely, regardless of the eco politik.

    The main beneficiaries of high fuel prices seem to be footballers; the most successful clubs being the ones owned by the hydrocarbon barons.

    Icon a penguin, cos they will notice little difference to their daily life for the next millennia...

    1. Psyx

      Re: The only truth..

      Ha: Fat chance!

      We'll find ways of finding or producing more of the stuff. We're so dependant and it's so effective, that we will always prefer oil to any alternative.

  16. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Interesting results but remember it's *one* data point

    Next move. take some more (quite a few more for preference) cores across the continent (or at least around the periphery).

    Otherwise we're looking at the *one* trees tree rings that "proves" global warming.

    It certainly suggests that while it's not *frequent* (IE every few decades) it's not unprecedented and most of the precedents were set when human kind was living in caves or mud huts.

    Thumbs up for new *raw* data and the hope they establish a few more *real* data points in the debate.

    1. Robinson
      Facepalm

      Re: Interesting results but remember it's *one* data point

      "Otherwise we're looking at the *one* trees tree rings that "proves" global warming."

      A funny and ironic statement, given that Briffa's Yamal paper turned out in fact to hinge on the measurements from a single tree!

  17. Robinson
    Facepalm

    Can I just point out...

    Can I just point out that there's a MASSIVE BIAS in favour of the AGW hypothesis in the mainstream media and political class in certain countries (mostly Europe and parts of the US). Everywhere else AGW gets the skeptical treatment it deserves, i.e. people think it's a load of old bollocks.

    Now here's some bona fide EVIDENCE that it is bollocks, not that we need any because we all know about the Vostok cores, right? Oh, you don't? Well here's a graph that will give you a hard-on:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

    Shocking, isn't it? Skeptics have been saying all along that current temperatures and trends are well within the bounds of natural variation. Well, now you have TWO ACTUAL DATA SETS TO LOOK AT. But I bet you don't. I bet you continue to look at the output of your models, as if they somehow have greater validity than the empirical evidence.

    Pathetic.

    1. Wilco 1
      Facepalm

      Re: Can I just point out...

      I don't see how you believe we are well within natural variation. According to the graph we have been at a peak around 10000 years ago and temperatures should now go down rather than sharply up. Current CO2 concentration is 30% higher than any time in the last 450000 years. Is that definition of "well within natural variation"?

      1. Robinson
        Thumb Down

        Re: Can I just point out...

        You're an idiot if you interpret the graph as "should now go down, rather than sharply up" (not that it is going "sharply up"). As the graph has been on average going up since the Little Ice Age, at what point do you think it suddenly started being about CO2? As far as I can see, it has never been about CO2. Moreover, CO2 is PLANT FOOD, not a pollutant. The biosphere is starved of CO2 at the moment. What a wonderful side-effect this is of Human ingenuity: Feeding plants.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Can I just point out...

          "You're an idiot if you interpret the graph as "should now go down, rather than sharply up" (not that it is going "sharply up"). As the graph has been on average going up since the Little Ice Age, at what point do you think it suddenly started being about CO2?"

          You're an idiot if you think we can see the last 300 years on that graph. Have YOU even looked at the graph you posted?

  18. Ron70

    AGW/CC religion:

    This article is surely heresy!

  19. Adrian Midgley 1
    Thumb Down

    I suspect it shows something about PR/journalist people

    actually

    For the science, read the paper.

  20. Steve Crook
    Coat

    Ice shelf fatally weakened

    By drilling numbers of massive ice cores out of it....

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing to see here, move along

    Climate changes and always has. However, insurance companies (whose cold-eyed examination of probabilities is not influenced by hysteria or wishful thinking) are adjusting to increased rates of weather disasters. In the US State of Florida, national firms will no longer write new policies for example.

    Observations show increasing atmospheric temperatures, moisture content, and yes, CO2. Other observations show weather pattern changes moving tropical weather bands into sub-tropical areas and sub-tropical dry zones toward the poles. Watch for Sahara-like conditions in Southern Europe. Simultaneously, the polar jet stream has increased the amplitude of its north- south meandering, leading to both winters with no snow in some regions and heavier than normal snow in others (February 2012, Europe). Which region receives which weather is random.

    Past is never prolog for the weather, which makes almost any statement about it true, at least sometimes.

    1. Dig

      Re: Nothing to see here, move along

      insurance companies increase premiums because they can. their job is to make as much money as possible and latch on to any reason to not pay ir increase premiums. the number of violent storms hitting usa has decreased recently and the last drought similar to now in usa produced the dust bowl this time just increased corn prices now we adapt better.

  22. bill 36
    Mushroom

    Hands up

    Everyone that has ever read a journalist who did not have an agenda or a hint of bias.

    Why do you expect lewis to be any different? He is sceptical about the given reason for recent global warming. And why not?

    Why do some of you commentards attack him personally for reporting a different set of facts.

    I think its quite refreshing to get an alternative point of view.

    I live in the Alps and the people here can tell you stories going back generations about huge dumps of snow and how it long it lay on the ground.

    None of them claim it was any colder. More snow certainly but what does that tell us?

    1. Psyx

      Re: Hands up

      "Why do some of you commentards attack him personally for reporting a different set of facts."

      It's that he reports them so badly; by misinterpreting data, cherry-picking sentences from reports, passing off minority reports about localised data as the whole story, and has such a massive axe to grind.

      What the hell is the point in reading a story that's totally one-sided and biased, unless you simply want to reinforce your world view? It doesn't makes those adverse to the idea reconsider, because it's not a reasoned and fair debate. All it does is give the baying people who agree with him more "proof" to reinforce their pre-existing views.

      That's not journalism: That's a hand-job.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Hands up

        It's not that bad, it's a reasonable summary, better than not hearing about the research at all. Yes the framing of it as some kind of climate skeptic pro-data is wrong, but so was the citation of the warming as being unprecedented in the original press release.

  23. itzman
    Black Helicopters

    Am I the only one who actuyally thinks lewis is doing a good job?

    It is absolutely clear from the two articles which he links to, that a balanced piece of research in one has been twisted and spun to make a little bit of a scare in the other.

    That is interesting, if only because if AGW is so proven and accepted, must people feel the constant need to fabricate perceptions to support it?

    On a more general note, even if AGW turns out by some accidental freak of nature to be correct, does anyone seriously believe that will make the slightest bit of difference to policy in China or India? Whose CO2 emissions dominate the planet? and for whom a reduction would cause millions if not billions of deaths, and to whom AGW is merely a slim possibility they MAY have to deal with?

    Of course not, short of nuking them back to the stone age (and risking the equivalent response) the one fact you can rely on is that CO2 levels will increase until they have burnt all the easy to get coal. Irrespective of what the USA or Europe does, or does not, do.

    Ergo arguing about whether climate change is happening (it always has in the past, so its likely that it still is, and those ice cores demonstrate that clearly) and arguing about what we should do about it (clearly there is not a single thing we CAN do about it - see above) is a pointless useless waste of time if you actually care about climate change and human existence at all. In fact we should, if anything, not be trying to stop it like a bunch of stupid Cnuts - we should be adapting to it.

    One has to ask the question, then, why there is so MUCH perception bending spin coming out of the AGW camp to convince us that it is happening (we know that: It always has) and that we, as a small nation in a small continent not only can, but MUST do something about it?

    Cui Bono?

    Who benefits from a climate (sic) of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about climate and from the deliberately fostered perception that IF we spend enough money on their products, it will never happen?

    I am amazed at the Naivete of El Regs readership - it was the IT industry that INVENTED this marketing style shortly before the legalised drug pushers and snake oil salesmen took it up to promote any product at all from Seroxat to Toothpaste to laxatives.

    Al Gore is a media specialist. He flunked sciences. He has made millions from 'environmental ' companies

    I will leave you to connect the dots.

    But the conclusion is that whether or not its getting warmer or colder, its deeply unlikely it will stay the same. Whether or not it's anything to do with human emissions is even less clear. And supremely irrelevant, because we cant condemn the third world to rural poverty even if we wanted to. Ergo there is nothing to be said or done about climate change other than 'be prepared' and all the green policies in the world are worth as much as a piece of used recycled toilet paper in terms of their alleged purposes.

    They are however an extremely profitable business for a few.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Am I the only one who actuyally thinks lewis is doing a good job?

      "why there is so MUCH perception bending spin coming out of the AGW camp to convince us that it is happening"

      Perhaps because those on the sharp-end of research are already totally convinced and are shit-scaredly [sic] trying to get into everyone else's skulls just how fucked we are?

      Just a thought. It's just that if I knew there was a big rock about to fall on Earth and people were sucking through their teeth and saying "we're not sure", I'd be getting pretty desperate by now, too.

      Occam's razor, to my mind.

  24. Alex Future
    Unhappy

    Bang Pa-In

    Disappointng attitudes and irresponsible comments here from my peers whom should understand an uncertain future and dangers of not having a backup solution in place.

  25. Wilco 1
    FAIL

    Meanwhile arctic ice cover is at an all time low

    And will set a new recored far below the previous 2007 low. Here is a graph showing the situation as of August 13: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    Note how the years are colored showing a clear trend over the last 30 years. I wonder how this fact will be spun on The Register?

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Evidence?

    Just because similar warming as we've just seen have occurred in the past doesn't mean this warming isn't due to anthropogenic warming. Sure, there's natural variability, but for all we know the natural variability would have cooled for the last 100 years, instead, due to the CO2 it has warmed.

    1. Psyx
      Holmes

      Re: Evidence?

      "Just because similar warming as we've just seen have occurred in the past doesn't mean this warming isn't due to anthropogenic warming."

      Quite right. I couldn't agree more. But do you want to bet your planet on it?

      Choice a) Carry on as were are, assuming it's not happening or not us. Either we are fucked if it's out of our hands, fucked and regretting it if it was our fault, or we'll somehow get by, but will have spent 200 years wasting energy and resources by being so careless with them.

      Choice b) Reduce our fucking enormous wastage. Either it does nothing and we merely save a load of resources, or it works, the world is saved, and there is much rejoicing.

      To me it's an obvious choice. Even if the odds of it being are fault and that us doing something will help the situation are only 1-in-10, that's a good enough reason for me for us to start to act a bit responsibly. And - as I say - even if it does nothing, it will mean there will be more resources for future generations.

      1. Hawkmoth
        Thumb Up

        Re: Evidence?

        This is possibly the first sensible post in the whole bunch. What IF the anthropogenic global warming fans ARE right? Won't all you skeptics feel dumb. So what if they're wrong? At least we've curbed our ridiculous waste, which is something we should be doing anyway.

        And one more question for all the skeptics out there...what's your end-game on all this fossil fuel-CO2 into the air thing? Even if I accept that the peak oil people are utterly crazy, I find it hard to believe there's INFINITE fossil fuel. Also, even if I accept that the CO2 causes warming people are utterly crazy, surely there's gotta be something that happens when you put infinite CO2 in the atmosphere? So let's say there's 2 orders of magnitude more fossil fuels than previously estimated and that CO2 is 2 orders of magnitude less likely to cause bad changes than previously thought...with fuel use increasing exponentially, even those limits will be hit pretty soon. So what's your plan? Come on...what's YOUR plan?

        1. John Angelico
          Boffin

          Re: Evidence?

          <quote>Even if I accept that the peak oil people are utterly crazy, I find it hard to believe there's INFINITE fossil fuel.</quote>

          Umm, I suggest that you Google for "renewable crude oil" and read what you find...

          Furthermore, I offer this analysis:

          Where, currently, do we find it more amenable to live - in warmer or colder climes around the globe? [Rhetorical question, surely?]

          So should the overall temperature trend be on the rise, I put it to you that the global effect will be to expand the warmer regions towards currently colder latitudes. Equatorial latitudes might become 2-4 degrees warmer by the end of this century, but so will temperate and frigid zones IF the prognostications achieve their worst predicted outcomes.

          Why should such trends represent "the sky is falling" doom & gloom panic stations?

          I posit that the result should lead to a reduction in fossil fuels being used for heating, and that more temperate acreage might mean more plants absorbing CO2. Some nicely positive feedback effects, no?

          1. Osgard Leach
            WTF?

            Re: Evidence?

            All nice and sunny, yes...Just like a holiday.... Unless you live close to sea level of course, but that can't be more than, 75 perhaps 80% of us.

  27. Chuunen Baka

    Greenland melting

    This is similar to the "unprecedented" Greenland melt story a few weeks back that was headlined as evidence of climate change but the ice cores indicated that the top layer melt happened every 150 years or so.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483

    1. Abel Adamski

      Re: Greenland melting

      Every 150 Years

      Last Happened 120 years ago (does 30 years early mean anything )

  28. Jim Birch
    Meh

    Lewis Page

    Say no more.

  29. David Gale

    What if they're wrong...?

    The 'what if they're wrong' of the AGW lobbyists needs to include the FACT that current green-led strategies are fast rendering the West commercially uncompetitive. When governments have finished destroying entire industries and the communities that they support, who's going to deal with the civil unrest and disorder that results?

    Whilst moving away from a dependency on carbon fuels may be a sensible LONG-term strategy, do not kid yourself that the current green lobby path does not constitute a further severe risk to already wobbly global stability...

  30. Dan Paul
    Devil

    Opposite Viewpoints are not wrong, unpopular but neccessary.

    Why is it that I get 9 downvotes for stating that Lewis Page and Andrew Orlowski are simply providing counterpoint to the obviously biased AGW supporters? This post should garner some more...

    Is it because those normally "Anonymous Cowards" who never post under a real name can't stand to hear anyone making a rational argument against their "New Religion"?

    I have nothing bad to say about cleaning up your environmental act wherever possible but it has to be both fiscally and socially responsible while being leagally and technically equitable.

    I will say this now and forever... AGW is a baldfaced lie promulgated by people whose agenda it is to destroy the ability of the Western World to live at it's current level of comfort. Climate change is not caused by man but a naturally occuring cycle that can be easily seen if the science is unclouded by F.U.D.

    The "Green" agenda is designed to make our collective economy tank while raising that of other countries who DO NOT comply with ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS at all.

    The western world has already done plenty to clean up our air and water. At this time, doing any more is not financially feasible. However, pound for pound even minimal cleanup in Central and South America, China, Asia, Russia, Indonesia, Africa would provide greater environmental benefit and results than any major changes in Europe, or North America.

    It is a plain and simple fact that no one from the "Green Movement" will ever try to force THOSE nations to actually do anything to clean up their act.

    This irrational green baloney is just part of the one world government, one currency, rich oligarchs versus the middle class & poor conspiracy that no one wants to acknowledge. It's a lot easier to conquer a bankrupt country than a fiscally sound one

    The western world is already on the edge of financial collapse. Don't let Green Religion overtake actual Science and push us all over the cliff. Our "Fearless Leaders" and the Chinese are already doing a great job at sending us back to the Stone Age.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Opposite Viewpoints are not wrong, unpopular but neccessary.

      "Climate change is not caused by man but a naturally occuring cycle that can be easily seen if the science is unclouded by F.U.D."

      Wrong. Downvoted.

    2. Osgard Leach
      FAIL

      Re: Opposite Viewpoints are not wrong, unpopular but neccessary.

      Never mind the one-world-government- bald faced-lie-conspiracy-to collapse-economies ranting, you nail yourself as a religious crank when you say "I will say this now and forever"

      .

      Never mind new evidence, never mind new research, never mind unfolding scenarios, you will say this now and forever.

      And rational people will not be listening.

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Opposite Viewpoints are not wrong, unpopular but neccessary.

      Written like a true swivel eyed loon.

  31. andy 45
    Thumb Down

    'Unprecedented'

    I like the quote in the BBC article link a commenter provided:

    "The word "unprecedented" is often misused in terms of Arctic ice. In this context it means unprecedented in 30 years of satellite observations, as the press release acknowledged."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19269571

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha! ad infinitum

  32. Michael M

    Climate news at El Reg?

    It's like getting your IT information from Horse and Hound.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019