The Irish climate is heating up almost twice as fast as the rest of the world

Mobhi1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6969931.stm

The Irish climate is heating up almost twice as fast as the rest of the world, a report has suggested.

Weather records from the last 100 years show significant differences between Ireland's temperature patterns and global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which commissioned the research, said the impact could not be slowed in future years by international action.

The study showed average temperatures rising by twice the earth's average.

It is believed the seas around the island have been acting as a buffer which delays the arrival of global temperature patterns.

Dr John Sweeney, of Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units (ICARUS) who was one of the report's authors said: "So we're catching up, we're making up for lost time."


It's not so much the temperature which will be important for Ireland so much as the rainfall changes
Dr John Sweeney
Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units

The study of meteorological records found a 0.7 degrees Celsius temperature rise overall along with more intense and frequent rainfall over the last century.

But while the rest of the world began to warm around the mid-1970s Ireland was still cooling down from the earlier part of last century until about 1981 or 1982.

"It's really since that time that we've changed the corner as a country in terms of warming ... and warming at roughly twice the rate of the global average," Dr Sweeney said.

The National University of Ireland academic said the changes may not be so noticeable to most at the moment because it was happening mainly at night.

The evening temperature rise may be down to extra moisture in the air, which is forming clouds and trapping in after dark heat.

"It's not yet perceptible to everybody but once the day time maximum temperature in the summer begins to respond in the same way then we will really begin to accept climate change in Ireland big time, I'm afraid," he said.

Gas emissions

The climate change - expected to bring 2.5 degrees Celsius higher temperatures in the summer, and slightly less than that in the winter by 2050 - will impact worst on the most populated parts of the island.

"It's not so much the temperature which will be important for Ireland so much as the rainfall changes," said Dr Sweeney.

"We're an island that has become very dependant on an abundant supply of water.

"If that begins to pose a problem in the years ahead - especially in those parts of the country where we are putting large numbers of people, demanding large quantities of water - that's where the crunch will probably come for Ireland, first of all.

"It will be in terms of the ability to meet municipal demand, meet agricultural demand for water in the drier parts of the country, in the east and the south east."

Ireland's Environment Minister John Gormley has pledged to introduce several initiatives before the end of the year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as other strategies to stem global warming.

bonkey

Surely the report is saying that Ireland is heating faster than teh world average, not faster than the rest of the world?

In either case...the overall effect is a world average, so its to be expected that different locales will have different rates of change.

Mobhi1

Some more details here:
http://www.epa.ie/news/pr/2007/name,23318,en.html

Downloadable report here:
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/climate/name,23305,en.htm...

Mothman

The home website for all of the above
http://www.c4i.ie/

jawlie

Everything , it seems, to do with any change in the weather is to be blamed on Global warming.

You may have heard, for example, that global warming is responsible for the the shrinking Aral Sea, which is much in the news lately. the news organisations are heralding this as yet another example of the consequences of global warming, together with warning of dire consequences unless we all stop flying, or driving, or turning on lights or whatever is the fashionable thing to stop doing this week.

The truth is rather different as anyone with any knowledge of the area knows. Water from the two main rivers to the Aral Sea, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya, has been diverted for agricultural use since the 1960, and this is almost entirely responsible for the shrinking of the sea. Listening to the news reports, this was not even mentioned as a possible cause, and the only culprit was deemed to be "global warming" or "climate change".

We all have to be wary of taking what we are told at face value and have a duty to question. The human impact on the global climate system is unproven and assertions pertaining to it should be constantly questioned.

It seems to the onlooker that, if the most sophisticated computer predictions can get our summer weather so wrong, and not able to predict a few weeks ahead, then it is possible they can't predict 50 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years with any accuracy.

fits

Mothman wrote:

The home website for all of the above
http://www.c4i.ie/

Its not actually... its
http://geography.nuim.ie/ICARUS/index.html

C4I is a completely different project and they use different data and methods

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

Everything , it seems, to do with any change in the weather is to be blamed on Global warming.

Or so critics of Global warming would have us believe, at least.

You may have heard, for example, that global warming is responsible for the the shrinking Aral Sea, which is much in the news lately. the news organisations are heralding this as yet another example of the consequences of global warming, together with warning of dire consequences unless we all stop flying, or driving, or turning on lights or whatever is the fashionable thing to stop doing this week.

A number of comments on this...

Firstly...no I hadn't heard that global warming was responsible. So I did a quick search on google. I put in "Aral Sea", nothing about shrinking, nothing about why.

What did I find? Wikipedia - the first hit say its been shrinking since the 60s because the then-USSR diverted the water. A bbc news link also makes the first page, blaming the USSR diversion of water for irrigation. Worldlakes.org, the same. nasa...ditto. NewScientist, the same.

In fact, I struggled to find the Aral Sea linked to global warming at all, without explicitly searching under "Aral Sea Global Warming". Once I did that, I found stuff talking about the potential for Artic melt to restore it, articles talking about how global warming could accelerate the desertification resultant from the recession (but not how it caused the recession). Eventually, I found one possible connection to an ITV report, but only by finding an article pointing out how wrong it was.

I finally tracked down the article referenced...and it was a report on a map maker saying this was due to global warming!!!! Yes..definitely who I'd trust to get it right...a reporter passing on what a map-maker apparently said.

The truth is rather different as anyone with any knowledge of the area knows.

Or anyone who doesn't believe them first thing told to them, or people who might wonder at the quality of sources, or....

Listening to the news reports,

See...thats the first mistake. Believing that news reports are a credible source to accurately portray the scientific stance in the first place. Believing map-makers are experts on climatic change would be a second.

The human impact on the global climate system is unproven and assertions pertaining to it should be constantly questioned.

Yes, but only by rejecting, ignoring, or remaining ignorant of the scientific approach, should the assertions pertaining to it be ignored or rejected.

From a scientific perspective, we should continue to further our understanding (which is the "constantly questioned" you mention). We are, of course, continuing to further our understanding. Scientists are still conducting research in this area. Amazingly, though, it is predominantly the anti-global-warming mentality who argue that these scientists cannot be trusted - that they're in it for the money, or something.

It seems to the onlooker that, if the most sophisticated computer predictions can get our summer weather so wrong, and not able to predict a few weeks ahead, then it is possible they can't predict 50 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years with any accuracy.

Well, this would be the same type of onlooker who believes that the Aral Sea is receding through global warming, because some non-scientific news reporter told them it was so, because a map-maker made the allegations.

People who cannot understand the fundamental difference between weather and climate should not be trusted to pass comment on the quality of science on either.

People who can understand the fundamental difference will know why your statement above is inherently misleading.

Yes, the possibility exists tht they models are wrong. No, its not because we cannot model the weather of next week. You're suggesting connections as ludicrous as the ones you attacked at the start of your post.

lucernarian

That's a little unfair bonkey. If weather models are unable to fully pinpoint the weather in two weeks time, then objectively climate prediction models must also face up to possible inaccuracy. Climate is a function of weather, not the other way around.

It's not hard to understand the difference between climate and weather. Though it's a crude example, the difference is taught in Junior Cert. geography.

It's also not fair to simplistically say "Critics of Global Warming". I would sooner agree with jawlie on that statement (esp. wrt the media), but I'm not a critic of a changing climate. I'm a critic of model predictions being touted as fact.

Regarding assertions, jawlie's statement was "constantly questioned", not "ignored or rejected". That is a critical difference, and one which you most likely were concious of when making the statement anyway.

Finally, I believe it's true to say that:

The models analysing the future 100 year period may well be wrong for both the common reasons that 2 week weather predictions are wrong, as well as the different reasons.

Also, to clarify, I think that the mere suspicion of climate change is enough of a motive to take action to ensure its prevention. Any follower of the weather and its beauty can understand this. I do wish that people would stop touting accelerated climate change speculation as fact.

bonkey

To_be_confirmed wrote:

That's a little unfair bonkey. If weather models are unable to fully pinpoint the weather in two weeks time, then objectively climate prediction models must also face up to possible inaccuracy. Climate is a function of weather, not the other way around.

No, its not unfair.

This argument is akin to saying that if physics models are unable to predict accurately the fall of the ball in every spin of an unbiased roulette wheel, they should also unable to accurately predict the long-term trends....which is patently nonsense.

People seem to have this idea that climatic modelling says something incredibly precise, and get all in a huff that there's no way it can be so precise. The reality is that the model predicts a range, with a most-probable position within that, assigning statistical probabilities.

If you want to compare that to the weather forecast, then compare like with like. Its not the forecast that says "it will rain next Monday" that you want to compare it with, but rather the one that says "there is an X% chance of precipitation on Monday ranging between Y and Z amount". Thus, even if it doesn't rain on Monday this model can be correct, because it only applied a statistical probability.

It's also not fair to simplistically say "Critics of Global Warming".

Well, it seems that its no fair to call them anything. If you say someone denies it, inevitably there's complaints about drawing (subconscious) association with holocaust denial.

On the other hand, "skeptic" is completely inappropriate, given the apparent willingness to embrace all things which refute the current position that GW is a reality, and that AGW is almost certainly a reality.

To people they are critical of the science which supports GW / AGW is about the most accurate description possible....so why is it not fair?

I would sooner agree with jawlie on that statement (esp. wrt the media), but I'm not a critic of a changing climate. I'm a critic of model predictions being touted as fact.

And as with jawlie's earlier complaint, I will point out that the only people engaging in such touting are the media (not the scientists), and from what I can see the only people listening to them are the people who do so in order to find another reason to reject the science thats being misrepresented.

Regarding assertions, jawlie's statement was "constantly questioned", not "ignored or rejected". That is a critical difference, and one which you most likely were concious of when making the statement anyway.

The point I was making is that any scientific research into global warming is de facto a questioning of what is known or believed. The research is the constant questioning. But this isn't good enough for some. The research is what they refuse to accept, and they refuse to accept it on the grounds that its not being questioned!!! Its a self-contradictory position unless one can actually show that the research is not objectively looking at the issue. But the critics of global warming can't do this. They just say it is, because it keeps finding the same results!!! They seem to rule out the possibility that the general agreement of findings is because the fundamental principles of the theory are correct. Rather they reject it as non-objective because its producing consistent results! Of course, if it didn't produce consistent results, then they'd reject it because it was inconsistent!

Its like saying that we should reject the theory of gravity because, well, no-one who does research into it finds that our predictive models of how gravity will work are wrong, and that all of our measurements of its effects agree with each other too neatly.

Finally, I believe it's true to say that:

The models analysing the future 100 year period may well be wrong for both the common reasons that 2 week weather predictions are wrong, as well as the different reasons.

Of course its true. Its also true to say that our model gravity may be wrong. Its true to say that anything in science may be wrong.

And here's the thing....global warming models already state their levels of certainty, their ranges of probable outcomes, etc. To say that they may be wrong is meaningless. They implicitly and explicitly acknowledge a degree of uncertainty. This degree of uncertainty is constantly refined because there is ongoing research constantly questioning established dogma.

So as you can see, the argument that we should consider the possibility that these models are wrong, and the argument that these models need to be constantly challenged is simply misleading. Its either based on a position of not knowing that the models are constantly questioned, are constantly refined, and are explicitly allowing for uncertainty, or its based on a position of knowing-but-ignoring this information.

In the former case (not knowing), the argument is as ill-informed as the media positions being complained about by critics. In the latter case, its hard to argue that its not an attempt to be deliberately misleading.

I do wish that people would stop touting accelerated climate change speculation as fact.

And I wish that critics of the models would learn to distinguish between what it is that models say and what it is that they're attacking. Those supporting climate change models seem to have far less confusion on this issue. Seriosuly...look back through any of the CC threads here and you'll see the same thing. Critics of the theory are complaining about this being touted as evidence and that being touted as fact. Supporters of the theory aren't actually touting these things at all. They're simply trying to correct the misconceptions in the claims of the critics.

lostexpectation

jawlie wrote:

Everything , it seems, to do with any change in the weather is to be blamed on Global warming.

You may have heard, for example, that global warming is responsible for the the shrinking Aral Sea, which is much in the news lately. the news organisations are heralding this as yet another example of the consequences of global warming, together with warning of dire consequences unless we all stop flying, or driving, or turning on lights or whatever is the fashionable thing to stop doing this week.

The truth is rather different as anyone with any knowledge of the area knows. Water from the two main rivers to the Aral Sea, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya, has been diverted for agricultural use since the 1960, and this is almost entirely responsible for the shrinking of the sea. Listening to the news reports, this was not even mentioned as a possible cause, and the only culprit was deemed to be "global warming" or "climate change".

We all have to be wary of taking what we are told at face value and have a duty to question. The human impact on the global climate system is unproven and assertions pertaining to it should be constantly questioned.

It seems to the onlooker that, if the most sophisticated computer predictions can get our summer weather so wrong, and not able to predict a few weeks ahead, then it is possible they can't predict 50 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years with any accuracy.

the news report i saw did headline climate change affected how maps are drawn but did go on to say abuse of lakes by irrigation was another major factor.

jawlie

bonkey wrote:

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Well, it seems that its no fair to call them anything. If you say someone denies it, inevitably there's complaints about drawing (subconscious) association with holocaust denial.

.

This is not the first time I have been misunderstood by Bonkey, and my point was partly about the way this whole subject is reported. Having said that, I'm not sure what the connection is between being a sceptic ( ie someone who needs proof and doesn't just accept things at face value) and a holocaust denier. I have to say to introduce this term in this manner is diagraceful and unworthy and find it pointless interacting with one who would level such an accusation, however obscurely.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I'm not sure what the connection between being a sceptic ( ie someone who needs proof and doesn't just accept things at face value) and a holocaust denier.

Well done missing the point. I was explaining why I don't use the term "denier" and why I don't use the term skeptic.

To clarify once more: I don't use the term denier because some are quick to take offence from its usage - as you've just so admirably demonstrated. I don't use the term skeptic because its entirely inaccurate.

The whole notion that Global Warming be accepted "at face value" is a straw-man.

What you are in effect saying is that you refuse to accept the evidence that is presented, because you want evidence.

You're not being asked to take the reality of Global Warming at face value. You're not even being asked to take at face value the science behind it.

But rather than acknowledge this, you attack the straw-man notion that because someone tells you the results, you're being asked to take the results at face value. You attack the notion that because scientists have looked at the issue, and come to a broad consensus which they have presented, you're being asked to only take their final conclusion at face value.

If they had a single science paper on teh issue, this would be akin to them presenting the findings, but refusing to le tyou see the paper. In this case, it would be akin to them presenting the findings of analysis of hundreds of papers, and not letting yo uknow what papers tehy used, nor what was contained within them.

This is patently false. The information is there. You're not being asked to take anything at face value. Thus, as a skeptic, if you have an objection to their findings, it should be based on a meaningful critique of the body of work. And yes - I do mean of the body of work. People complain about Mann's hockey-stick, but ignore that many other studies, using independant techniques, have produced results in broad agreement with it. So even if we agree that Mann's findings are not trustworthy, it doesn't undermine the body of work as a whole, nor does it signifiacntly effect anything which is based on the assumption that Mann's conclusions are broadly correct.

This body of work, incidentally, that you mistakenly suggest you're being asked to take at face value doesn't make weather-forecast style predictions. It doesn't say that global temperature will be exactly this value on that date, and that the climate in Europe will be precisely this or that. Rather, these findings give probabilities of effects ending up within certain ranges.

But when we see the objection raised to them, its that "they could be wrong. They're not proven". Well of course they could be wrong. That's why they assign probabilities to a range of outcomes in the first place.

But looking close....what does "it could be wrong" even mean in this context? Is it saying that we might beat the odds? The models already allow for that...thats why they have odds in the first place. Is it saying that the odds are wrong? Well, if so, then as a skeptic one should have an informed reason for rejecting them - a meaningful critique of how they were brought together, why they are wrong, and (ideally) what the implication is.

As for the "lets wait and see" argument, it completely ignores that with the possibility of only running the test once, it is impossible to verify whether or not a percentage-probability model was right or wrong. Even if it says something is 99% certain to happen, it not happening doesn't invalidate the model.

As a skeptic, you presumably know all of this. You should know it, because the only way to be skeptical of something (in hte scientific sense) is to be sufficiently informed about it to have a meaningful basis on which to judge. Unfortunately your arguments don't show that. They are as misrepresentative of the issue as the media reports you constantly complain about and use as yet another reason to reject the science.

On the other hand, when someone from a scientific background raises any form of objection or criticism you raise a hearty cheer and embrace their argument. When someone else raises a critique of the science, arguing that the uncertainties are greater than calculated....do you equally refuse to accept that without proof? When they make a claim that "its all just models", do you reject that without proof? Or do you instead use these stances to argue why "its not proven".

You, sir, are not a skeptic, which is why I don't use the term. My refusal to use it is not unfair. It is possible to be skeptical of Global warming...but I've seen precious few people manage that position. Most simply are critical of it, and some reject it outright.

I have to say I find the association unfortunate and unworthy and find it pointless interacting with one who would level such an accusation, however obscurely.

Level what accusation? I explained why the term is not acceptable. I explained why I don't use it, just as I explained why I don't refer to critics of Global Warming as skeptics.

But if further proof were needed as to why you should not be called a skeptic, this is surely it. You are willing to assume that I'm attempting to insult you - to interpret the information as it suits you - rather than to seek clarification and surity before reaching judgement.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

and my point was partly about the way this whole subject is reported.

As was mine.

While we can both agree that the media do a p1ss-poor job of reporting it, I find your way of representing the situation no more accurate than theirs.

lucernarian

bonkey wrote:

They're simply trying to correct the misconceptions in the claims of the critics.

And dare I ask, what misconceptions in the "claims of the critics" would these be? Jawlie alone is certainly not representative of the critics.

My god, I think this is turning into a philosophical debate.

"And I wish that critics of the models would learn to distinguish between what it is that models say and what it is that they're attacking." I simply cannot understand that statement. And to be honest, I'm not willing to find out what you mean, as it will be something to the tune of "you're wrong" except there'll be a few too many lines to say it.

To people they are critical of the science which supports GW / AGW is about the most accurate description possible....so why is it not fair?

That is indeed the most accurate description possible IMO, but that's a different descripion to "Critics of Global Warming". It's not fair because "Critics of Global Warming" means they are critical of climate change itself, as opposed to the predictions supporting the idea of man-made climate change.

Most people are unhappy with the fact that our climate is changing, but I stand by the fact that we do not know about what our climate will be, nor should we be nearly certain.

bonkey

To_be_confirmed wrote:

"And I wish that critics of the models would learn to distinguish between what it is that models say and what it is that they're attacking." I simply cannot understand that statement.

Why? On one hand, people are rejecting the notion that climatological models can be "that accurate", and offer excuses like "we can't even predict next weeks weather". The thing is, that the accuracy they're suggesting doesn't exist in climatological models in the first place.

And to be honest, I'm not willing to find out what you mean, as it will be something to the tune of "you're wrong" except there'll be a few too many lines to say it.

I see. So would it be fair to say that you're not too interested in reading the science regarding global warming either, because you'd rather the summary which says "its getting warmer" rather than the "few too many lines" that scientists take to actually say that?

Then having read the summary, will you reject it because you're completely missing the detail?

You're suggesting that detail is a bad thing.

It's not fair because "Critics of Global Warming" means they are critical of climate change itself, as opposed to the predictions supporting the idea of man-made climate change.

Well, to be honest, if they would (in general) accept that the science which says "the earth is getting warmer" was solid, then I'd accept your point. The problem is that many don't. They dispute this fact. They dispute trends like the much-maligned hockey stick. They come up with all sorts of reasons why even that part of the science only dealing with overall temperature isn't trustworthy.

I have met perhaps 2 people (between those in person and those online) who argue that they accept that global warming is happening, do not accept that man is responsible and who's acceptance and rejection of the various scientific research behind the entire issue is entirely in line with their position.

On the other hand, you'll meet lots of people who claim to accept in principle that there is warming, but not that its attributable to man, and then when questioned on it start attacking the science which deals purely with trends of warmth and the effect of that, but which says nothing about the cause.

I stand by the fact that we do not know about what our climate will be, nor should we be nearly certain.

Yes, its a fact that we don't know. Thats why climatological models don't state for a fact that there is only one outcome.

That we should be nearly certain....now you're heading into the dangerous territory of needing more words. Of course we can be nearly certain. The issue comes with balancing specificity and certainty. Scientists claim to have gotten quite good at that. They have a lot of science behind them, expressed using a lot of words. You take issue with that, and seem to have an issue with large volumes of words used to discuss a complex issue.

So basically, you seem to be saying you don't accept they can be as sure as they claim because, well, you just don't believe them....rather than because you can raise an informed, scientific objection to their models and their specific predictions.

You could say that others have raised these objections so you don't have to, and that would be fine...as long as you accept that this means you cannot claim the position of being a skeptic as you are accepting the validity of one side's arguments without question, but not the others.

jawlie

To_be_confirmed, I decided not to reply to Bonkey's tirade as it seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with him without being told that my "representation of the situation" (whatever that means) is "piss poor", and all sorts of other accusations. It seems pointless as its impossible to engage with that sort of person. I applaud your stamina in continuing to engage with such a person and I wish you the best of luck.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

To_be_confirmed, I decided not to reply to Bonkey's tirade as it seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with him without being told that my "representation of the situation" (whatever that means) is "piss poor", and all sorts of other accusations. It seems pointless as its impossible to engage with that sort of person. I applaud your stamina in continuing to engage with such a person and I wish you the best of luck.

At least I had the courtesy to limit my comments to your argument, rather than your person.

rc28

jawlie wrote:

To_be_confirmed, I decided not to reply to Bonkey's tirade as it seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with him without being told that my "representation of the situation" (whatever that means) is "piss poor", and all sorts of other accusations. It seems pointless as its impossible to engage with that sort of person. I applaud your stamina in continuing to engage with such a person and I wish you the best of luck.

WTF? Sorry, but that's just really pathetic.

fits

Bonkey, I'd just like to say that I wish I could express myself as well as you can.

I *know* what you are saying, but could not express it nearly as effectively. Very good.

Snowbie

Try not get into a slagging match here.Both GW's threads have been an interesting read so far and is good to hear everyone views on the subject.

jawlie,bonkey was discussing your post/points and not attacking you as a poster but in saying that you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter too.Im not interested what happened before between you two on a different forum but try not continue it here and spoil the thread for everyone:) .

By reading both threads there is an element of confusion on the topic of GW generally from what is been read into from the media and scientific world.You will always get people divided on the matter and on here is no different.Maybe there is an argument and case for all sides.

From the late 70s the scientists where expecting a global cool down but a few years later 81/82 to present,there has been an upward trend in global temps.
Now my 2c on this is the planet is going through another warming phase/peroid but is GW accelerating this,maybe or maybe not.Its too premature to say if both are linked but not dismissing the possibility.
I also think that from all sides the evidence is inconclusive in my view,its just too early to say whether the AGW is happening,that this is just another warming phase or that measurements from the past aren't entirely accurate.This planet can cool down just as quick as it can warm ,has always done so but by how much,over how long etc.?

I believe in the present day climate,and just whats around the corner.I dont believe in season LRFs spanning 4 months away nor do i believe in predictions made 50 to 100 years away on cataclismic climatic events.
I do accept the Pacific phenomonen and also the NAD.
If global temps are on the rise both the above ocean phenomonen can contribute and lead to the next Ice Age but when,for how long or have i led myself to believe from what i've read from scientific evidence to again be inconclusive and inaccurate?
Or maybe the sun has burned off all its hydrogen and is now undergoing its enlargement into a red giant and is gradually heating the earth right underneath our noses.Probably not but why not?
Its a case of what you believe or if you believe.

So if GW is occuring all around us,well man is to blame and god help us either by way of heat or the cold, or what if it is just a load of hype,blown out of all proportion and the sceptics are right.
From what i know is that i was born before the GW era and have grown up with it,always there being played in the background.

Trogdor

Snowbie wrote:

Try not get into a slagging match here.Both GW's threads have been an interesting read so far and is good to hear everyone views on the subject.

jawlie,bonkey was discussing your post/points and not attacking you as a poster but in saying that you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter too.Im not interested what happened before between you two on a different forum but try not continue it here and spoil the thread for everyone:) .

By reading both threads there is an element of confusion on the topic of GW generally from what is been read into from the media and scientific world.You will always get people divided on the matter and on here is no different.Maybe there is an argument and case for all sides.

From the late 70s the scientists where expecting a global cool down but a few years later 81/82 to present,there has been an upward trend in global temps.
Now my 2c on this is the planet is going through another warming phase/peroid but is GW accelerating this,maybe or maybe not.Its too premature to say if both are linked but not dismissing the possibility.
I also think that from all sides the evidence is inconclusive in my view,its just too early to say whether the AGW is happening,that this is just another warming phase or that measurements from the past aren't entirely accurate.This planet can cool down just as quick as it can warm ,has always done so but by how much,over how long etc.?

I believe in the present day climate,and just whats around the corner.I dont believe in season LRFs spanning 4 months away nor do i believe in predictions made 50 to 100 years away on cataclismic climatic events.
I do accept the Pacific phenomonen and also the NAD.
If global temps are on the rise both the above ocean phenomonen can contribute and lead to the next Ice Age but when,for how long or have i led myself to believe from what i've read from scientific evidence to again be inconclusive and inaccurate?
Or maybe the sun has burned off all its hydrogen and is now undergoing its enlargement into a red giant and is gradually heating the earth right underneath our noses.Probably not but why not?
Its a case of what you believe or if you believe.

So if GW is occuring all around us,well man is to blame and god help us either by way of heat or the cold, or what if it is just a load of hype,blown out of all proportion and the sceptics are right.
From what i know is that i was born before the GW era and have grown up with it,always there being played in the background.

Exactly my view, although i know some on here don't agree

jawlie

Snowbie wrote:

jawlie,bonkey was discussing your post/points and not attacking you as a poster but in saying that you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter too.

I'm not a shrinking violet and don't take thing personally, although to tell someone else their arguments are "piss poor" seems unnecessary and unworthy, and it is difficult to argue logically with someone who argues in that way.

Snowbie

You have repeated yourself several times now and seems to me your taking this personal.As i said already,whatever happened before between you two,lets leave it there.
Do you want me to ask bonkey to edit that post for you?.
If you dont like a post and it has offended you,use the report post function.
I have not received a reported post on this so i think all is well and time to move on.Agreed?

lucernarian

I agree with that post Snowbie (the one outlining your views on AGW and suchlike).

Bonkey, I don't see the justification in saying that critics should distinguish between model predictions and what they're attacking. That's why I don't understand that statement. As a critic, I am unconvinced by model predictions. I disagree with their use to demonstrate that floods are more likely, for example. I don't see what I have to distinguish.

I don't see the benefit in climate change predictions. I do acknowledge that our climate is different now to what it was a number of years ago.

The science and general trends between long range forecasts (e.g predicting the amount of hurricanes in a season) and climate change are similar, as I see it as analysing the effects of CO2 and CH4 concentrations on these same trends and signals. Of course, there are other influences on climate change, but they all eventually come down to the effects on these signals and on things like the activity of the PFJ and pacific ocean currents.

The science behind what *currently* influences our climate and what affects ocean currents is still in the early stages of development IMO. So I don't see much merit in the predictions. If there is no basis to what I said in my last 2 paragraphs, then please do point them out.:)



Btw, no one has to bother adding the underscores to my name. They were there because boards.ie did not allow spaces in names at the time. TBC will do.

jawlie

Snowbie wrote:

You have repeated yourself several times now and seems to me your taking this personal.As i said already,whatever happened before between you two,lets leave it there.
Do you want me to ask bonkey to edit that post for you?.
If you dont like a post and it has offended you,use the report post function.
I have not received a reported post on this so i think all is well and time to move on.Agreed?

It may seem like that to you, but you are wrong. You are also wrong that anything happened before between "us two".

Snowbie

jawlie wrote:

It may seem like that to you, but you are wrong. You are also wrong that anything happened before between "us two".

Well you wrote

jawlie wrote:

This is not the first time I have been misunderstood by Bonkey

Thats telling me there is/was a history.

As i said a couple of times now, it has not interested me from whatever you meant by your above quote but i also mentioned not to spoil this thread and to leave it there.
This is the third and last time i will say this to you to quit this and try not to engage with me here.

Stay on topic please.

jawlie

Snowbie wrote:

Well you wrote
Thats telling me there is/was a history.

As i said a couple of times now, it has not interested me from whatever you meant by your above quote but i also mentioned not to spoil this thread and to leave it there.
This is the third and last time i will say this to you to quit this and try not to engage with me here.

Stay on topic please.

If you judge that being misunderstood by someone else counts as a "history" then we obviously move in different worlds. Do we also now have a "history" because we have both contributed to this thread?

In any case, whether or not the world is warming is a matter of fact as temperatures can be, and are, recorded. They are recorded not only on the ground, but also in space.

What interests me, assuming we agree there is a problem, is the solution. Bearing in mind the increasing affluence of the east (China & India predominantly) and the South American & soon African continents, and the forecast for population growth from 6 billion to 9 billion, how can we arrest, or even reverse, the current production of greenhouse gases? Tinkering with the levels of tax on SUVs in Dublin 4 really is not the solution. And I wonder, whatever the solution is, will it be politically acceptable?

Sam Kade

What keeps this global warming scam going are the people that believe it. A volcano can emit more c02 in one year than all the cars spray cans etc can in ten years. The ozone doesn't stop sunlight or protect us in any way in fact ozone is destroyed and produced all the time. Co2 is heavier than air it doesn't rise it's absorbed by plants and the ocean. The only thing this global warming does is make money for governments and regulate people out of business in a few years this will be forgotten about and they will dream up another scam.

jawlie

Sam Kade wrote:

What keeps this global warming scam going are the people that believe it. A volcano can emit more c02 in one year than all the cars spray cans etc can in ten years.

Your position seems to be one of a cynic, whereas I am, I hope, a sceptic.

What interest me is what people think the solution to this problem is. While we in the rich west can tinker with SUV tax, and all rush to install wood pellet boilers, it seems to me that is merely tinkering at the fringes. While this may not be unworthy and may even be desirable, it isn't going to reverse, or even stop,the global problem.

fits

jawlie wrote:

What interest me is what people think the solution to this problem is. While we in the rich west can tinker with SUV tax, and all rush to install wood pellet boilers, it seems to me that is merely tinkering at the fringes. While this may not be unworthy and may even be desirable, it isn't going to reverse the global problem.

I disagree with a lot of your points, but agree fully with this one. I think we're just pee-ing in the wind at the moment.

RedPlanet

I too would like to chime-in and say to Bonkey that i enjoy reading your posts.
It appears your adversaries are not up to challenge and feign ignorance and injury.

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote:

I too would like to chime-in and say to Bonkey that i enjoy reading your posts.
It appears your adversaries are not up to challenge and feign ignorance and injury.

Agreed. All hail Bonkey!!