Antarctic ice melting

[alan refail]

An interesting if disturbing report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

[Geoff]

We'll have to go back to aerosols and proper paint.

[glallotments]

What do you make of this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[Johnboy]

Hi Glallotments,
Have you read the comments after the article? Dear oh dear I thought my thoughts on global warming were bad enough but these letters simply put me to shame!
JB.

[glallotments]

No I hadn't read the comments.

From the final statement of the article I thought the issue was around the possible causes of global warming as much as whether it was still happening.

If the cause isn't greenhouse gas emmissions from humans then I would have thought it was in everyone's interest to find out what it was.

There's another article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Seems that even the scientists are at odds over everything to do with climate change

[Mike Vogel]

Given the importance of the issue, the mishandling, in more ways than one, of the data by the UEA has been lamentable. However, it has been pointed out that the studies and their conclusions have been supported by other studies from around the world. Therefore it beggars belief that people should suggest that the theory that global warming has been caused by human activity has been damaged. Of course it hasn't - it is simply the UEA evidence that has been damaged, and the case remains strong without it.

I take 3 stands on this:
[a] I object to lumping all emissions together. The pollution which has occurred over the past 4000 years, and especially the last 200, has obviously been injurious and unnatural. Acid rain is an example. I am much less convinced by the carbon-emissions argument, on which scientific opinion is divided. Carbon is a naturally occurring element and there are those who claim to show that what we produce is absorbable [sorry- i can't provide the references].
[b] It must be glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that the overuse of fossil fuels and the horrifying amounts of waste from a growing human population is having an effect on the atmosphere and on our soils and watercourses. It is the percentage effect of our activities, set against other causes of global warming, that should be the issue. Of course, anything we can do to preserve the environment we thrive in should be done, but that includes culling homo sapiens by about 30%. Who's going to bite that bullet?
[c] As pointed out in the comments, the earth has been coming out of the last great ice age for about 10,000 years. During this period there have been temperature fluctuations. In medieval times Lincolnshire was producing wine - we have only just begun to reach a point where that may again be sustainable. I demand that the scientists who blame man's industrial activity entirely for global warming show clearly how they know that we are not simply being restored to the position we should be in anyhow. We know also that there are long-term fluctuations: the Congo rain forest was cool savanna 60,000 years ago, and rain forest 60,000 years before that. Explain that by citing man's pollution.

[Johnboy]

Hi Mike,
I only suggest this as a possibility.
How many calculations have been made using the amended the UEA figures? It may cast doubt on a great many calculations from around the world because they may have been initiated using a false premiss.
Because the raw facts have been destroyed it is no longer possible to actually check back for errors in the UEA current 'facts' which may turn out not to be 'facts' at all.
Certainly from the pinched Emails it is clear that a fair amount of jiggery pokery has gone on. Whether this actually affects the outcome I am afraid this is something none of us will ever know now!
JB.

[Mike Vogel]

There is also another question. Who's doing the jiggery-pokery? A hacker can not only hack - he can also create. Are those emails genuine? They could be: people with an agenda are not above twiddling facts and presenting information in a biased way. There's too much as yet unknown, but these emails have surfaced at a suspiciously convenient time, haven't they.

[glallotments]

The trouble is that statistics can be used to prove anything can't they depending on what outcome you would like - politicians are great at doing this?

[Cider Boys]

Climate Change

To paraphrase some comments I've read in the Newspapers that are asking the same questions that I would like answered:

Is there a creditable authority which is independant and devoid of self interest that we can trust?

Haven't there always been many people proclaiming pending doom for the planet?

Hasn't the earth with other planets been heating and cooling throughout their history?

I read that John Redwoods observation that the surface of Mars has also risen over the last few decades "and they are still looking for all the 4X4s that caused it" remains unanswered.

Are we sure this man made global warming is not a confidence trick to keep pressure groups, politicians and some scientists in business?

Barney

[Geoff]

Whether global warming is happening or not, whether it is man made or not, are both irrelevant. The measures that are being taken / proposed to combat it need to be taken anyway. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels at anything like the current rate as they will simply run out, what is left should be used mainly as chemical feedstock not as fuel. It seems feasible to heat our homes and get around to a reasonable extent (I consider most flying unreasonable) without using these reserves but it would be hard to envisage a world without polymers, after all many of them save the energy that helps redress the balance. If doing the sensible thing also stabilises the climate it is a bonus and it is unlikely to make things worse.