You pretty much knew the global warming scare was petering out when Al Gore bought a beach front house near Santa Barbara. Now global warming scientists have confirmed that the oceans won’t be lapping at his front door anytime soon.
The Independent UK has the hot news on global warming:
The 14 scientists, all experts in their fields of climate research, were asked about the probability of a tipping point being reached some time before 2200 if global warming continued on the course of the worst-case scenarios predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Nine of the fourteen scientists said that the chances of a tipping point for the high scenario were greater than 90 per cent, with only one saying that the chances were less than 50:50. At current rates of CO2 emissions, the world is on course for following the higher trajectory on global warming suggested by the IPCC.
2200? The global warming narrative has completely fallen apart. It used to be that they tried to scare us by saying our children would all die from global warming. Now it’s been delayed to our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren.
(By the way, we love the last line of that story. Doesn’t matter that even true global warming believers have indefinitely postponed Armageddon for 200 years, the Independent says things are even worse than the worst IPCC scare stories.)
Source: Independent UK
This post was last modified on July 1, 2010
View Comments (141)
I'd say you should go look in the mirror. Does Media Matters pay you to troll around conservative websites? I only ask because you sound like a stooge.
Define global cooling? Are you retarded or is that from your little warmer binder of idiotic replies? You want more on this subject? Here, this is from the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmolgy. Of course you wont believe that either because it's contrary to your warmer belief system, which is about all you asswipes have to hang on to anymore. http://bit.ly/9DbNWx
As I said, if by 'global cooling' you meant the effect of ENSO changing from El Niño to La Niña conditions then that's just normal interannual variability - not news at all. It happens all the time. Was that what you meant?
Troll
Could you be any more lame?
Even NOAA (those of the warmer persuasion) are forecasting global cooling.
http://bit.ly/dg6aLC
Define 'global cooling'. The globe is always warming and cooling on short timescales due to ENSO, the solar cycle etc. If NOAA are predicting that a change from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific will cause global average temperature to fall, this is not really news - it happens all the time. That's I've said all along about natural variability being superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic global warming trend.
JJRO,
We both know claims that “we're all doomed” have been made since we left the caves. It's worth mentioning a religious sect that grew to 100,000 members. You only became a member through castration, an oath, and ceremony of course.
Then one day the Sect disbanded with no explanation for historical record. I always thought it would have been good to have done an interview with the last member to join. If nothing else, it would be a warning to our male children at least.
The Ozone hole, I’m sure the banning of cost effective refrigerants and spray can ingredients closed it!
They just renamed that sect and called it MARRIAGE!
Hey ICKY, you might win a nobel prize or something if you did a study on the lava mantle of the earth! I bet no one has thought about that.
Too late for Icky....Al Gore says it's several million degrees...Idiot..I mean Icky probably believes that, too like a good little greentard should.
The only thing that NEVER gets blamed is the sun. You cant make any money on the theory that perhaps the sun's output changes periodically.
And to make matters worse, the Sun is going to run out of fuel some day. Maybe we tax all who use it in order to buy more fuel when it runs low?
Not so. Climate scientists always factor in the variation in total solar irradiance (TSI), which in fact has been declining slightly for several decades, at the same time as global average temperature has been rising. If it weren't for this slight cooling influence from TSI, the current warming would be even greater than it is now (by around 10%).
ICKY - my new nickname for you, hope you don't mind, but the graphs I referenced show a DECLINE in temperature over the last 8 years. You must be one of the only people around who aren't changing their tune and calling it CLIMATE change rather than GW. Most GW scientists are now jumping on the cooling bandwagon. But if I were you I'd go with "climate change" it'll make you seem more current.>> From January 11 2010
Mojib Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans.
OK, please read this page carefully, then come back and tell me that you understand what is wrong with your statement above.
Remember the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Founded in 1988 - 22 years ago. Hardly what you'd call 'changing tune'. I use the term 'global warming' because that describes precisely what is happening - the globe is warming at about 0.2C per decade. Even your 'skeptical' heroes such as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc. all acknowledge that. Remember that Spencer and Christy are responsible for the MSU UAH satellite temperature series which shows the same warming trend as all the others. 'Climate change' refers to the fact that the warming is only one aspect of what is happening to the climate at the moment - other aspects are ice melt, shifting climate zones, rising sea levels, changes in precipitation, changes in ocean acidity, salinity, currents and so on.
OK, find me a verifiable direct verbatim quote from the man himself, or preferably an audio/video recording, which supports what is being attributed to him in your comment. Then we'll discuss it.
You look it up I'm tired. Just google LATIF and COOLING.
It feels like telling a child there isn't a Santa Claus. It saddens me....
I must be getting old. I remember the coming ICE AGE (1975), the scary HOLE IN THE OZONE, Global Warming, climate change, and now, ICE AGE again.
I don't have to look it up, I know what he said. He said what I'm saying in that web page of mine - that natural variability is superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend:
"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it."
Now do you understand?
Now I DO understand. All this was about generating hits. The plot thickens.
If you can find a way of generating an income from Google Sites, I'd be delighted to hear about it. Otherwise you're just spouting the usual crap, which is all you have since you're clearly incapable of understanding actual science.
Usual Crap? that's what you're spreading son...
Understanding actual science? We understand all the so called science that preceeds this that turned out to be bull shit..
Ahhh finally! He's denigrating to name calling! Atta boy! Lose your binder of bullshit replies and get down in the mud with the rest of us!
Ohh, ICKY using AGW for some sort of profit or gain?
Isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Follow the money, power, influence, it'll usually help you discover the real motive..
Might as well go to a windy hill top and piss straight into a steady wind.
Facts have nothing to do with Icky's argument.
Hey that's my patented WDVS (Wind Direction Verification System)!
It's a foul wind too, same as what you find at the stock yard.
Careful Doug....Icarus will probably get a boner at the thougt of you doing all that.
Ewww! Tree huggers with boners...better find a knot hole!
Is it just me, but does Icarus seem to have way too much interest in the subject of GlobalWarming/ClimateChange? The extent of how many posts he has at this site & how many he has made in this story are more then a little disproportionate. It is his right, but that is telling that this story is the only one he's active in, & that has been a pattern I have been seeing here lately. Icarus & Darnell Eubank, & there have been others who have jumped in here & have had only 1 pitch. Seems to be a pattern & I don't think it's an accident.
I can see it now... somewhere in a deep dark underground bunker, operatives of the left are busy scouring the web for logical right leaning arguments. Their handpicked agents are taught to see buzzwords like "al gore sux" and then respond using their pre-written response sheet. Hmm. That gave me the chills!!
danybhoy, as I said before, I have children, and one day I might have grandchildren. Destroying the relatively stable climate which has supported the growth of human civilisation for the last 10,000 years or so seems to me a fairly serious danger, and one which I think we ought to do something about, for the sake of my descendants and everyone else's. How convinced do you have to be about something so devastating before you would do something about it?
Personally, I'll be convinced when the Goracle moves into a reasonable sized house - or maybe just one house. When Obammy stops flying Air Force One to New York for a date. When democratic legislators ride the train home once a month instead of flying weekly. When Hollywood parks all their Gulfstreams, Citations and Lears. When these scientists stop having global conferences in desirable destinations and use video conferencing and email like the rest of us. Then, I will begin to investigate when they spout off. Till then, I refuse to be a puppet on a string.
Okay Icarus, you have convinced me!
I am heading out now to trade in the Subaru Outback for a Prius...or should I just sell the car alltogether and ride my bike everywhere?
I live in a 4,000 sqft house, should I sell it, or perhaps have it demolished so that carbon absorbing trees can grow in its place?
This will be the last message you get from me as I will be selling/recyling all of my electronics...cant contribute to AGW by consuming electricity!!
Goodby fellow IHTM'ers I am going off to the mountains in hopes I can find a bear or mountain lion to consume me and return my energy back to Gaia who will use it for good, not evil....evil humans....anyone else want to join me...Icarus?...anyone?...anyone?
Well now... that's an interesting comment. I do think you should make efforts to reduce your impact on the planet. I cycle to work and back every day, and cycle to many other places at other times, and I'll often take the train and walk, or take the train and cycle, rather than using my car (electric trains are 5 to 10 times better than cars in terms of energy per passenger mile). I try to make sure that we dry clothes on the line rather than in the tumble dryer. I encourage my family to minimise driving and electricity usage, to recycle as much as possible, to avoid waste and so on. I know that my contribution in itself is insignificant, but hope that everyone will see the necessity in due course (even you).
Yeah thanks for the "advice". Where Im from we call that common sense. Ive had that subaru since 1999. It had 25k on the odometer when I bought it and now it has 96K. I ride a bike everywhere, not because I think Im saving the planet, but because its a great way to get around. I am always thinking of ways to save energy and consume less...not because I think it matters to Gaia, but because it saves me money.
It always amazes me how liberals feel they have discovered the secret to sustainable living and feel compelled to preach the word to others. Most people live like this because it makes sense.
Electric Trains are 5-10 times better than cars in terms of energy per passenger.
That certainly depends on whether the train goes where the people want to go AND they can afford to to get to the platform to ride.
In Seattle the all knowing and all caring voted in the construction of a very expensive light rail from seattle to just short of the air port. It was constructed in such a way that most can not make use of it. If we study the ridership, energy consumed and cost per mile, it's a big loser and an environmental disaster. It would likely be a financial disaster if it ran on fairy dust.
I love how electric trains & electric cars are the answer to our problems, but many on the eco-left don't realize that electricity comes from things like coal fire power plants, or nuke power plants. The hard leftist evironmental movement has fought the building of these plants tooth & nail for the last 30 years.
BTW, lite-rail systems are usually not cost efective, what they cost per passenger per mile is usually much higher then highways/freeways. There are some LRT systems that do OK in that area, but usually are a waste of money. You would be better with buses because of the flexability you can have by changing routes when the need exists. I personally hate public transit because I refuse to be at the mercy of gov't transportation for any reason. Not at home, not on vacation, not ever.
Yes, everything electric is good :-) Then there's hydrogen... that's the real fuel (container really)....matters not what you used to create it, or how incredibly stupid the loses are in the overall system...
Not me, I just got back from a roadie to Winnipeg, not in the mood to head into the mountains just yet. I will say they could use a nice big dose of DDT up there, the mosquitos up there are out of control. I was well syphoned of my blood up there by those effing things.
ICARUS! SAVE THE PLANET! KILL YOURSELF!
Speaking of Hyperbole...
You seem to have all the answers -- I have some questions. 1. Is the OZONE hole closing? 2. Do volcanic eruptions have an affect on climate? 3. What is the single largest producer of CO2? 4. In what year did the majority of scientists think the world was cooling?
1: Ozone depletion stabilised but there is no clear indication of a recovery as yet. This has very little to do with global climate.
2: Yes, volcanic eruptions can have a large effect on climate on a scale of several years, due to injection of aerosols into the stratosphere. However, these do decline on much shorter timescales than well-mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2.
3: The single largest producer of CO2 today, by far, is human activity. Until the industrial revolution, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 had been virtually constant for at least ten thousand years.
4: If there was any such time, it must have been in the 1960s or earlier.
Actually, the temp of the earth was warmest in the Holocene Maximum - about 4000 years ago. Maybe the aliens had some factories running back then. Not sure...
I just find it so amazing that we're still debating this when even Al Gore doesn't believe it any more...
Public education has failed our once great country.
It looks more like about 120,000 years to me, but I'd have to do a bit more research.
I'd be interested to see what you find. It seems the earth warmed without the help of manmade CO2, and at the very least, a reasonable debate must include the 'possibility' that CO2 is not the only cause... no?
The Earth has warmed and cooled throughout its history, due to changes in solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, long-lived greenhouse gases, vegetation changes and so on. None of this had anything to do with human activity because of course for the vast majority of Earth's 4.55 billion year history, we didn't even exist.
Today though, we are by far the largest contibutors to one of the largest influences on global climate - greenhouse gases. Current anthropogenic forcing (the net effect of warming from man-made greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols and so on) is 1.6 W/m². Compare this to the less than 1 W/m² increase in solar irradiance which was enough to take the planet out of the last ice age and raise global average temperature by 7C. Positive feebacks from increasing CO2, melting ice sheets, changing vegetation and other factors amplified that <1 W/m² of solar forcing to 5 W/m², resulting in the 7C of global warming. These are the feedbacks which climate scientists are particularly worried about triggering now - e.g. methane from melting permafrost (methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas), the disappearing Arctic ice cap and so on.
So you're right - CO2 isn't the only cause of the current anthropogenic warming, but it is the largest by a substantial margin. See here for a comparison of the main forcings.
JJJRO, there is no 'reply' option below your latest comment so I have replied to my previous comment instead.
I have a web page showing that four of the most-cited global temperature series (RSS, UAH, GISTEMP and HADCRUT3VGL) all show the same warming trend. This should give you some confidence that the non-satellite records (which of course go back much further than the satellite series) are correct. If you don't believe my web page, just graph it yourself, like this. It's worth remembering that John Christy, who is definitely in the AGW skeptic camp, is responsible for the MSU UAH data series which shows exactly the same warming trend as all the others.
The point is, we are now changing the very same parameters which were responsible for those temperature changes before we existed - i.e. long-lived greenhouse gases, albedo, aerosols etc. If you don't believe our changes to those parameters are having any effect, then you can't believe that natural changes to those parameters ever had any effect either.
Sorry, but the science just isn't there.
You point to the IPCC data - but there are just as many data points that prove otherwise (Hadley Global CRUT3v, MSU UAH and ESRL to name a few). And since you admitted that the earth has a natural ebb and flow of temperature without the addition of man made CO2, I'm very skeptical about the verdict. What worries me more is the focus on the US and not on China who is a much bigger polluter.
Unforutnately, I think a majority of good willed people have been duped by fake numbers and bad science in an effort to take away their money.
Be a good steward of the planet? yes. Blindly believe the IPCC and the UN - even after they admitted to bad data?
Do yourself a favor and read this with an open mind:
HERE
We can visualize Icarus' finger following the flow chart for the proper response.