Now I'm confused

[DrTeeth]

Between the UN and all the countries who signed up to the Kyoto Treaty, you think most of the political pressure is against global warming science??

If governments were really serious about cutting greenhouse emissions they would have adapted a protocol with higher standards than just install quota levelling off greenhouse emissions. Quota wich most if not all Western countries will fail to meet in 2008. The Kyoto protocol isn't much more than a token gesture adapted under pressure of the general public and the majority of scientists who do accept a dominating anthropogenic influence on projected temperature rises.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Then the question becomes how do we deal with it, we can speed up decarbonisation of our energy sources and adapt technologies that minimise carbon emissions - central planning at the expense of the national interest will fail.

 

[melon]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html

'Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist'

Okay, just to set the record straight...

Why is there a seeming contradiction between "global warming" and talk of an ice age? I mean, one is really hot and one is really cold...right?

However, an ice age really IS the likely consequence of prolonged global warming, due to the science behind the Atlantic Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is dependent on a specific level of oceanic salinity. As the climate continues to warm, Arctic ice caps and permafrost continue to melt, which releases a large amount of freshwater into the North Atlantic. Enough of it will alter the salinity of the North Atlantic enough to slow down or downright collapse the Gulf Stream. Since the climate of Europe / Western Russia is affected by the warmth that the Gulf Stream provides, a collapse of the Gulf Stream, due to lowered oceanic salinity from global warming, would cause an Ice Age. Then, as the Ice Age rebuilds the ice caps, sucking out freshwater that would be in the oceans and then raising salinity, the Gulf Stream would be rebuilt.

The last time this occurred was approximately 12,000 years ago, where the drainage of a large Canadian glacial lake (the remnants of which are Lake Winnipeg) into Hudson Bay caused the "Younger Dryas." This "ice age" lasted approximately 1000 years. As such, I'd imagine that if the Gulf Stream collapses again, it could take another 1000 years before it rebuilds again. However, it would certainly decimate civilization as we know it in Europe.

Now, I'm not sure what this scientist is referring to, but, yes, I've read that some scientists who study sunspot cycles believe we're heading for a cooler, wetter period. It's not all that improbable, since it's believed that the 12th century A.D. was warmer than it is even today.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Sorry but have you read the forcast for Europe with climate change? Predictions of glaciers covering Wales, extremely cold winters. The idea of global warming has been discredited because global climate is more complex than a 1:1 - CO2: Heating effect. That is why the terminology climate change has been introduced.

i've stated repeatedly that it is complex, it's the other argument being presented -- human activity has no affect upon climate -- that is the simplistic 1:1 way of thinking, especially when we get a scientist or two who dissent from what is widely agreed upon and then this piece of evidence is held up to enable the individual (or governments) to dismiss what is common knowledge and refuse to change personal behavior. i've never once said that CO2 = heat, but that human activity is having an inarguable affect upon global climates, and that this is a bad thing and requires individual initiative as well as government action to combat.

Is it even worth pointing out to you that the issue here is solar output and it's effect on climate? Just as Milankovitch cycles have periodic effects on how much solar energy reaches the earth and tempreture is altered correspondingly.

is it worth pointing out to you that this thread isn't about Kyoto -- your favorite punching bag -- and not even so much about climate change in and of itself, but it's evolved into something much more meta -- it's more about the selectivity of knowledge, the commodification of knowledge, and how we pick and choose what we want to hear in accordance with our own lifestyle choices.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well I am sure that we will have some idea in 15 years.