Do you remember mid-1970s fears of global winter?
A Sino-American collaboration has come up with an explanation for the cooling — an approximately 60-year salinity-driven cycle in the Atlantic — and their study has been published in Science.
Do you remember mid-1970s fears of global winter?
This topic was created by Irony Deficient .
-
Friday 5th December 2014 10:22 GMT NumptyScrub
From the linked article (emphasis mine):
Rapid warming in the last two and a half decades of the 20th century, they proposed in an earlier study, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface.
So, the current models that attribute most (if not all) observed warming to increases in atmospheric CO2 are out by quite a large amount. Maybe the models need to be revised and the current "+4C by 2100" predictions recalculated? Possibly once the newly calculated predictions are in, we should reassess policy as well.
Or am I being too scientific on what is, demonstrably, quite an emotive subject? ^^;
-
Tuesday 23rd December 2014 02:10 GMT oneeye
Climate change is an expensive lie being foisted on the people of the world. Cllimate is controlled largely by the Earths rotation,orbit,and THE OUTPUT OF THE SUN!
I remember the coming ice age back in the seventies,and shoveling snow till it towered over me. Kind of like what Buffalo ,New York just received a while back. And where are all the superstorms? Hurricanes and the like?
The so-called THEORIES, and that is all they are,NOT FACT, are a joke. They,the self proclaimed experts,are not able to see the tree,for the forest. They are lookingg at the micro,not the macro. The media propagandistas,only perpetuate the lie. There are multitudes of scientist who firmly disagree with the liars and thieves (read UN) and all their apologist.(read Gore) . The historians are betters judges of climate any day of the week. This subject really gets my goat. That people are so gullible and lazy to seek the truth of things,as evidenced by how the lemmings vote on elections of recent past. But the pendulum is starting to swing the othher way again,so all hope is not lost.IMHO.
-
Tuesday 30th December 2014 15:30 GMT NumptyScrub
Paleoclimate temperature measurements (or rather, measurements of other things that are then back-calculated to temperature) all tend to show that we have been getting warmer, overall, for at least the last 12,000 years. We're also just past the end of an 80 million year or so cooling period.
Neither of which says anything specific, however it does tend to suggest, to me at least, that we are going to be getting warmer for at least the next few million years. I just want scientists (and a lot of others) to stop presenting theory or model-based predictions as facts. They are not facts. Only base measured data is facts, everything else is theory and is only as useful as it's ability to accurately predict; something that most of the current models seem woefully inadequate at, although experience with the state of weather prediction means I'm not terribly surprised that we're still shit at it at anything beyond the "couple of days" timescale.
-
Wednesday 21st January 2015 01:42 GMT thx1138v2
Exactly. The last time I saw a report on the accuracy of the computer models used it said they could be proven to be 30% accurate. They did not, however, give any details on their method of "proof".
Basing decisions on that data then has about the same chance of being dead wrong as playing Russian Roulette with four bullets in the gun.
-
-
-
Friday 17th April 2015 10:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Climate change is an expensive lie being foisted on the people of the world."
Get your head out of the sand. AGW has not been in any doubt for at least a decade now.
"Cllimate is controlled largely by the Earths rotation,orbit,and THE OUTPUT OF THE SUN"
Largely, yes. However we can measure all of those very accurately and we know for sure that a significant and likely the primary cause of the global warming since 1880 is due to human created CO2 emissions.
-
Thursday 23rd April 2015 07:18 GMT flearider
ok this is the part where it get stupid .. CO2 is good not bad we are just above 400ppm crops around the world are producing more and more .. there has been no rise in temp for 19 yrs ..
in this day and age there really can't be a rise in temps it's just not possible ..so say the laws of physics
now if the co2 went up i's still not a bad thing .. 600ppm would mean food prices would fall and temps may go up 0.01 deg
but non of this is going to happen over the next 35 yrs the suns going quiet and we are going cold once again ..
-
Thursday 23rd April 2015 11:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
" there has been no rise in temp for 19 yrs .."
Yes there has. It slowed down a bit granted, but the steady rise over the long term continues.
"now if the co2 went up i's still not a bad thing .. 600ppm would mean food prices would fall"
Erm no. You might gain a small amount of productivity from the extra plant growth, but this would be vastly outweighed by loss of arable land, and by damage from extreme weather events.
" and temps may go up 0.01 deg"
No - we are already rising much fast than that. 600ppm would put us on course for a 6-8 degrees C rise in temperature. The last time that happened was about 252 million years ago, and ~ 96% of the life on the planet died. Not to mention it would cause a sea level rise in the tens of metres...
"but non of this is going to happen over the next 35 yrs the suns going quiet and we are going cold once again .."
Whilst there can be sun related effects like a Maunder Minimum, these are temporary and a continuing increase in CO2 will eventually take precedence. There is no evidence that such an event is likely to happen in the next 35 years. Note that the term "Little Ice Age" applied to the Maunder minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 22nd January 2015 10:16 GMT JoeHerb
Refereed science was, in the early ’70s, running four or five to one in favor of man made warming over cooling. The famous Ice Age Scare of the ’70s was in the magazines at the supermarket checkout line, and in poorly researched newspaper articles, not the science journals. But the majority position in the field was we don’t have enough data to predict anything yet. It’s a mistake to say “consensus was already building” though.
http://ukessayreviews.com/
-
Thursday 16th April 2015 16:03 GMT Hardrada
El Reg articles from several months ago
(I can't post a new thread, so I've tried to pick the closest recent one. I hope that's OK.)
I'm looking for two climate-related links that I've seen on El Reg in the last year and haven't been able to find anywhere else. (I've used both the site's search feature and outside search engines, with both Yank and British spelling.)
The first regarded a climate scientist who tied/chained/handcuffed himself to a tree (or perhaps a fence or post) in a protest.
The other was a post by a climate scientist linking to a cartoon that suggested euthanizing scientists who denied climate change.
Either one would be handy when I need to remind people that "deniers" don't have a monopoly on hot-headedness, so I'd be very appreciative if anyone happens to know their whereabouts.
Cheers :)
-
Saturday 21st November 2015 15:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Climate scare and the new free trade agreements are really two competing World domination plots?
This morning (quite late one) it hit me, the hypothesis that fits the data.
The climate scare is the US democrats favourite World domination plot as the new free trade TXX:s are the republicans favorite equivalents. Now the race is on, which ever side gets it's treaty signed and approved into law first forces the other competitor to redraft to be in accordance. (Now is there a strategy game idea here?). The free trade wanting small companies and climate-scared people are the pawns on the board.
1) Wikileaks reported that there is no mention of climate change in the TXX secret papers.
2) Wikileaks also mention that there are big sanctions for governments that ruin markets (they can be sued for compensation by big companies).
3) Lord Munktons youtube mentioned that last several climate conferences meeting documents are self referring links (the link just loads the page it is on again) ... so they are secret, just like the trade agreements are.
4) Reading this quality site it has long been clear that trade and climate have surprisingly little to do with free trade or the climate. Instead the possibilities of getting global power by "law fare" --- if you get your law in place in a region then you own it. It's practical power that requires no real military presence, if you break the "rules" then you pay a fine (maybe even in secret -- no public uproar). The big international treaties are the best way to circumvent democratic power ... it's like signing with company title or your self, except the company is a country.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
