Climate change - the evidence and the impacts

[MrCoffeeFiend]

Nothing but green propaganda in this video. Just move along.

[papertv2]

Greenhouses generally have a roof, which keeps the warmth inside, the sky, I do believe, does not have a roof, apart from a huge cold amorphous space that goes on forever so why do they refer constantly to greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide molecules radiate heat in all directions not specifically downward towards the earth, I dont quite get it, but then I am not a climate scientist.

[HumanSayNo]

Wow....what a load of bull shit!

[glen4th]

All very well, BUT,I read about Roman Britain , how they had vineyards in southern Britain because it was warmer 2000 years ago.I also read about life in the Orkneys 3000 years ago and how they caught and ate Sea Bream, a warm water fish, because the seas were warmer around northern Britain then. I am old enough to remember reading about climate change in the late 50's, then there was talk about ice shadows in Canada lasting longer and we were heading for an ice age.The climate always changes.

[skr7171]

' Deception is a state of Mind and The Mind of State' - James Angleton CIA .The MET Office is part of the British State(under the MOD) and not an independent Body. Enough said on these sad pawns

[Ashgrove17]

Wouldn't know poop from clay! Tell me what happened when the recent volcanos flexed their muscles? What did man have to do with that?

Load of ol bollocks the lot of it.

People like Al Gore will make millions out of this rubbish. It's the biggest scam perpetuated on us so called "plebs" ever.

[sydneydoc]

C'mon Dave, this is just silly : "each of last 3 decades warmer than the last"

There's been no warming for 15 years ! ... and NO evidence that man has had any effect on climate.

Since the accurate Agro bouy network has been installed it has shown that ocean temperatures have been falling.

[rapperfrgman]

@freealbion: He was referring to one particular metric (tree ring growth) which is inconsistent with *recorded warming* over a recent history. The quote you mention has been widely referred to, including by journalists and politicians and academics, but I am afraid they all completely misunderstood what is actually a pretty straightforward point. They should be ashamed of misleading the public on this.

[SpudXXXX]

Cut your energy consumption in half and they’ll double the price. Man made global warming is a money scam and a science sham. NASA’s missions have revealed that the Carbon Dioxide ice southern cap on Mars has diminished for three summers in a row. The same is happening to other planets.

watch?v=39-f0X_5XSc

[sydneydoc]

Dave,

There's been warming and cooling for billions of years.

Cooling for the past 15 years ... with forecasts of cooling for another 30.

Warming for the past 300 years

Cooling over the past 6000 years

Warming for the past 10,000 yrs since the last ice age

... and nothing to show that man has caused any of it.

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Indeed there has been, doesnt really mean today's warming is caused by natural causes though does it. And of course natural causes can be modelled and eliminated as causes. Warming for last 100 years, each of last 3 decades warmer than the last. Average temp for each decadal year warmer than previous. The cycles of glacial and interglacial you refer to are well understood and not the cause. Plenty to show humans caused it- basic phyics. GHGs warm atmospheres if left unchecked- Venus!

[sydneydoc]

Dave,

I can see you're getting all emotional now, as your religion is challenged.

Read ClimateGate emails in detail to get a better idea of how you have been scammed.  Make sure to read the actual comment lines in the programs used by the IPCC.

AGW is the scam of the century. It has become a religion where the true believers don't need evidence.

CO2 levels have been 7 times as high since mammals walked the earth, with no ill effects.

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Interesting you should fall back on that 'environment=religion' argument and choose not to make clear which elements of the science you agree/disagree with.I've laid out the case and referred you to the acknowledged source on the matter, the IPCC,which handily compiles the evidence.Quite apart from the implausibility of climate change policy being a money making machine for those involved,you don't address the science.So again,list your objections/concerns,concisely, without emotion

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc .The world is warming in all areas,across land, air sea.2.Natural variations cannot explain the warming-forcing due to changes in volcanic activity,solar activity,orbital effects etc. don't explain the warming.3.GHG are known warmers of the climate and have increased exponentially in the last 100 yrs.4.Models developed to predict climate only replicate observations if natural+man-made effects are included.5.Testable impacts from climate impacts are consistent with effects seen

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc I've re-listed the 5 point case- which parts do you dispute? All? No 2? No 4?

The question is not whether the earth will survice human-induced climate change- it will, as long as the run-away positive feedback effects you dispute don't kick in.Natural processes will return GHG levels to pre-industrial levels, albeit on a multi-millenial cycle.There would of course be substantial impacts on an already stressed natural environment,including further damage to over-stretched systems.

[DaveG37]

@DaveG37 The real point is about risk management.Given the clear scientific consensus,the enormously damaging economic impacts from serious climate change if emissions are left unabated,given that estimates of dealing with the cost range from 1-3% of total wealth,why wouldn't a rational society take action.Warming of 1 degree seen so far is serious,but hardly compare to the 5-10 deg temp changes likely if climate change is left unchecked.There,plenty for you to make disparate observations?

[sydneydoc]

As Trenberth, one of the scientists at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal that revealed the extent of the AGW scam, said "its a traversty we can't account for the lack of warming" !!!

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Again, simply tittle tattle based on selective quoting from thousands of stolen e-mails. A proper, fair reading of the context would show science exactly how it should be, and exactly the opposite of what you claim.

In other words, scientists challenging each other and the science to build on what is known, work towards new knowledge and remain sceptical and vigilant.

[sydneydoc]

@Dave,

Sorry, the 3 degrees is a pure guess by IPCC's modellers. Models are NOT evidence. It is easy to make models give any answer you want.

The basis of the IPCC's guess is "climate sensitivity". The IPCC pick models which assume positive feedbacks. A doubling of CO2 should theoretically only give a warming of 0.5 degrees, so the IPCC assumes it it amplified by water vapour ... POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Positive feedbacks don't exist in nature. Data indicates climate feedbacks are negative.

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Do you really believe what you write? Positive feedback exists in many places in nature- again as a man claiming to be a scientist you should know that.

So, to date, your main criticisms of the science are what you call a guess (its science not a guess) on climate sensitivity, and your allegation that positive feedback doesn't exist.

So you'd accept warming, the existence of GHGs, but your suggestion is that the warming is natural. Welll to do that you'd have to explain alot..

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc You'd have to explain why GHG's wouldn't cause warming- where does the warming go? If you allege as you seem to its because the climate is one hundred times less sensitive to forcing than the IPCC considers, then the same lack of sensitivity would mean that other forcing's don't do it either- solar variation has been small, orbital changes can be calculated and factored in, and so on.

[sydneydoc]

@DaveG37

"Mountain of evidence" !!!???

In your own words exactly what is it ?

Yeh that's pretty tough ... perhaps just the big one ... that big piece of "evidence" that convinced you that man is causing global warming ?

You might also try giving a page and section reference to the latest IPCC report giving the "evidence". Good luck ... there's nothing ! Not a shred !!

Theoretically CO2 should cause a tiny warming ... about 0.03 deg for a doubling of CO2.

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Happy to do so-which part of the case for man-man climate change do you contest?Lets start simply for you- do you dispute that certain gases in the atmosphere have a warming effect, including water vapour, Co2, CH4, and so on?Second simple point to start with- do you dispute that the earth is warming, in all hemispheres, land and ocean?3rd point- if you are referring to climate sensitivity,you are miles out, I thought you claimed to be a scientist..?Try 1-10 deg with 3 best estimate

[DaveG37]

@DaveG37 If that is too complicated for you,try this.The world is warming and the only scientifically robust theory that explains that fact,and makes predictions that are both consistent wih the evidence to date,and has resulted in successful predictions of the effects now being seen,is that humans are causing the change.The relevance of the IPCC is that it is the best statement of the evidence-asking for one line summaries is fatuous when you refuse to say which parts you reject

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc 1.The world is warming in all areas,across land, air sea.2.Natural variations cannot explain the warming-forcing due to changes in volcanic activity,solar activity,orbital effects etc. don't explain the warming.3.GHG are known warmers of the climate and have increased exponentially in the last 100 yrs.4.Models developed to predict climate only replicate observations if natural+man-made effects are included.5.Testable impacts from climate impacts are consistent with effects seen

[sydneydoc]

@DaveG37

So where is the evidence that man has caused any of the warming since 1945 when CO2 emissions increased 12 fold ? The warming between 1910 and 1940 was at a greater rate than any subsequent period !!!

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc But thats just not correct and I'm sure you must know that. The point of the time series discussions is not that the world hasn't been warmer in the past (it has), isn't that Co2 hasnt been higher in the atmopshere in the past (it has) nor is it that natural climate variation doesn't exist. Its that the only fit between observed climate changes and modelling, comes when natural+human induced warming are combined

[sydneydoc]

@DaveG37

>> i guess you're not a scientist

Wrong again. You alarmists just can't help yourselves but screw it up. I have a PhD Hon1, Chem Eng, UNSW.

You'll love the latest peer reviewed paper ... it shows Arctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST extent in the past 2000 years ! Published in Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. Medieval warm period had it much lower ... surprise, surprise ...

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Good so if you have scientific training you should be aware of the mountain of evidence which has been handily compiled by the IPCC. Which parts of the case don't you accept?

Makes it easier to debate- as a scientist you should know that single papers on limited topics hardly refute a larger theory and often are stepping stones to new insights. So I repeat, which part of the science are you disputing? That GHGs are gases that warm the atmosphere? That the earth is warming?And so on

[maxiboy666]

@sydneydoc You are spot on!

[maxiboy666]

To those that have replied to my earlier statements:

There is no evidence that any rise in average global temperatures is man made - NONE WHATSOEVER. If you find that concrete evidence, proven, published in a scientific paper and accepted by every distinguished living climatological scientist then feel free to send me the details.

Half of the respected scientific community believe (although not proven due to insufficient data) that the Sun's natural cycle is the cause.

[DaveG37]

@maxiboy666 Nope, again you remain completely in error, we could do a noddy guide to the science if you wish?

First lesson- its been understood since the 19th century that if you increase certain gases in the atmosphere then they can cause warming. That can we predicted with physics and tested experimentally and has been. Not disputed, easily shown...

[maxiboy666]

@DaveG37 I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree. I am comfortable with the fact that the earth moves through natural cycles of warming and cooling, some of these are extreme and some, like the present, are probably small. If an extreme cycle occurs then humans will have to adapt to it. But man made? Show me the proof based on real data first.

[DaveG37]

@maxiboy666 Well read the IPCC 4th assessment working group 1 on the physical science basis and let me know which part you can refute- thats how science works. Being comfortable with something is nice for you, but doesnt add up to anything now does it?

[sydneydoc]

DaveG37,

You've been reading too much rubbish from alarmist web sites !

Clean Air acts only applied to 1st world countries. Aerosols kept increasing after 1975 due to massive growth in 3rd world fossil fuel burning, outstripping 1st world consumption.

Alarmists trot out the aerosols crap, as usual, without a scrap of evidence.

Alarmists don't have any evidence that man's CO2 has caused any warming whatsoever.

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Well there are mountains of piles of evidence easily sourced from the world's leading academies of science. Easy to refute your claims about non-developed countries- their contributions were small at the time.

The basic physics and meteorology are well understood- i guess you're not a scientist and rely on 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand sources?

[martinfreye]

She mentions "Climate change" and how to mitigate it. Together with the photos of frightening seashore waves it's pretty obvious to me that she's either

1 Swallowed the lie that it's our fault

2 Get's paid to frighten people

3 Is ignoring the natural variations in temperature over the last few hundred years

4 Ignoring the fact that although we might subjugate our standard of living over the next 50 years it will only put off the results by about 5-10 years.

[Camzo22]

Couldn't be bovered to watch it

[guydecervens]

Didn't you guys at the Met Office say the summer of 2009 was to be a heatwave for Britain? Yes you did and it was the worst summer in a long time followed by the coldest winter with your own 'climatologists' reluctantly admitting global temperatures had not risen (fallen slightly in fact) in the past 15 years. Repeatedly telling us there is evidence for manmade climate change is not the same as demonstrating there is. What abysmal failures you all are.

[frpd5]

@guydecervens so 2 'errors' means that it is all wrong? Yup 2009 was not the hot summer predicted many months beforehand, but in mid France it was, rivers dried up, trees died off only 200 miles away. 'Global Warming' sounds sort of cosy, it actually means Climate Chaos. Russia suffers massive heatwaves while Pakistan suffers massive floods, there are '100 year floods' in the UK on a regular basis. Year on year the poles are melting, My Alaskan colleague can confirm this; sorry, this is real.

[guydecervens]

@frpd5 I don't know what you mean by 'sort of cosy' but I'm not a scientist so such erudite terminology is beyond my understanding. What I do know is that Global Warming is what the bedwetters claim is driving Climate Change. The Met Office got it completely wrong in 2009 when they were at the same time predicting a 'long hot summer' and an estimated 5°C Global Warming by 2040. But Global Warming has been static for 15 years according to the IPCC. If this is science then it is bad science.

[frpd5]

guydecervens: Don't forget there were also no significant warming trend from between 1977 and 1985, or 1981 and 1989 but this did not signal the end of global warming. The current lull in no way contradicts the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing long-term warming. I am also not a scientist so when the vast majority of those that are agree that there is a problem and past predictions regarding floods, melting glaciers and heatwaves happen I listen. Just off to wet the bed.

[freealbion]

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,”

Dr. Trenberth, University of East Anglia

Get it? temperatures are not rising and this twat does not know why - His crackpot ideas are wrong - how much clearer can this be?

[freealbion]

This is about as convincing as a sith form presentation and about as factual - the climate is related to sunspots - google - medieval warm period and - little ice age. Where were the 4x4's and factories then?

Why are we busily moving industry to China and india? china opens a new coal fired power station EVERY WEEK

look at climategate from univ. of east anglia

All this cobblers about global warming is exactly that - you are following the same kind of madness that led to the rise of the nazis

[johnhaverysamuel]

The blogs and Fox are full of so-called sceptics. However, if you read the journals like Nature or Scientific American, or the more basic research, there isn't much scepticism. The "doubt" is manufactured. Exxon, Koch, Marshall Institute - if you want conspiracy theories, look there.

[b20rashel]

THE WORLD IS COMING TO THE END!!!!

[maxiboy666]

DaveG37:

When you have proven conclusive sources that any past global warming is man made and that CO2 is the cause then please refer people here to them. But you cannot because it does not exist. The simple fact is that there is no conclusive evidence. Until there is the majority will remain sceptical and rightly so.

[sockpim]

@maxiboy666

True enough, but you can't deny that man has completely r*ped their home plannet for all it's worth, with no regard for the environment what so ever.

[DaveG37]

@maxiboy666 Well, you're simply and flatly wrong- we must make judgements now because the risks vastly outweigh the costs, and the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real, happening and extremely damaging unless we address it. Simple really- greenhouse gases warm the earth; we have added alot; the temperature and other indicators suggest the climate is responding to that; the consequences can be predicted and are disastrous. Ample evidence for all of that...

[maxiboy666]

DaveG37:

No, DaveG37, it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about. Who are you trying to fool with your superficial clap trap? No one!

Where do you get your facts from: UN, IPCC and the Met Office. How embarrassing for you to accept data that is unproven and, above all, massaged to the point of lunacy. What a complete fool you are. Having an argument and supporting a different point of view is one thing but trying to elbow your view with warped sources is another.

[DaveG37]

@maxiboy666 Well its basic and advanced science combined and not something you can get from a denialist website. IPCC, NoAA, MetOffice are packed with conscientious scientists, slowly building our understanding. The literature runs to thousands of scientific papers, read some of it...

[MarkNobes]

Decades of radiative physics, laboratory measurements, satellite measurements and peer-reviewed papers confirm that CO2 is trapping heat. The greenhouse gas qualities of CO2 have been known since 1861.

[sydneydoc]

@MarkNobes

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. The IPCC has inflated its THEORETICAL effects on climate by a factor of 50. There is no evidence whatsoever than man's CO2 has caused any ACTUAL warming.

The world has been warming naturally for 200 yrs since the LIA. The rate of man's CO2 emissions increased 1200% after 1945 ... but the rate of warming DECREASED after 1945..

[DaveG37]

@sydneydoc Again, nonsense, the colling 1940-1975 is easily explained and resulted from laregly aerosols caused by combustion. Clean air laws reduced these sources and un-masked the underlying warming. Nothing contentious in that and easily fact checked.

if you accept the world is warming, then you have to both explain why Co2 wouldnt cause warming, and what else is causing the warming. if you say the sun, you have to explain why solar physicists and astronomers would disagree with you.

[maxiboy666]

It never ceases to amaze me that when a scientist goes on the record and states facts that are not proven (a basic secondary school science rule). CO2 IS NOT a proven greenhouse gas yet it is still claimed to be by a minority of scientists. There is NO general consensus either. CO2 levels have been far higher in Earth's history from natural variations with NO correlation to temperature rises (verified data from Greenland, Arctic & Antarctic ice cores). But on and on they spout this rubbish.

[DaveG37]

Of course it is, the physics have been understood for a hundred years or more. Why else don't we have a climate like Mars?

You simply don't know what you are talking about- there is a consensus, there is a correlation for today's changes. Temperatures have been higher in the past, but how many complex inter-related civilisations existed during that time? Answer, none.

Take some time to read the IPCC's work, or go to the MetOffice site's pages to easily refute your daft claims.

[scudlington]

'What is climate change'?

A fraud perpetrated by governments to exhort greater control and monetary gain.

'What are the impacts?'

Extremely severe...in the wallet department.

'What is the evidence?'

Err...

'What can we do'?

Write to your local MP...Senator, whoever. Express your rage, indignation that the most expensive policy ever to be bestowed upon the human race has now categorically been shown to be based upon a lie and that this is an affront to civilised society.

[DaveG37]

You don't know what you are talking about. What you really mean is that the solutions required, in your view, offend your sense of where society should be going and because of that you deny the science in order to not have to challenge your assumptions.

There is no conspiracy or fraud, simply concerned governments and scientists seeking to improve our future prospects.

Go and read the real science and make up your mind, and not the pseudo-science ramblings you are drawing from.

[sibeks]

I am confused, I thought the heat of the day creates greenhouse gases and the cooling reduces by our oceans mostly. As far as history goes we are not in uncharted territory as it has been globaly much warmer than we are today. I do beleive we are in a warming cycle but not so much as man-made warming however I am totally in favour that we reduce nasty polutents into the atmosphere and keep our planet clean. Lets keep the peace for no neclear wars as that would create man-made climate change.

[scudlington]

Remember folks...this is not climatologists and others with relevant qualifications speaking but a libtard government with a leader who makes Pol Pot look sane.

[valerie353]

Thank you for a clear explanation of what we know when glaciers are melting and the very different effects depending on where we live.

I just logged on to check the weather and want to know more about the effect on my children and their children.

[RICHLES01]

Perhaps it would be better to run out of oil,,, No wars, No pollution, America being sincere and doing things because they want to help------------- I think i need to go and see the doc about the bang to my head!

[RICHLES01]

Who ever controls the oil, controls the world. Look at the USA, every aspect of anyting they do if for money and oil. again rotten to the core

[RICHLES01]

I can understand why this is the prison planet. We have to work outr nuts of just to pay the bills, perhaps if 100 Trillion per year was invested to help people come of the grid and invest in small renewable systems and make them affordable---- again no money will be made from that, so thats a no go from the start. In Australia, they have built a magnetic motor which runs from rare earth magnets, why dont you hear about it----- they dont want the masses to have free energy.

[RICHLES01]

If money was not being made by the likes of Al Gore, then I would be 100% behind climate change data. BUT the facts are millions will be made by carbon trading. Fudging the facts has become part of life and the whole system is rotten to the core. 100 Trillion per year carbon tax, who is going to ultimately pay for it----- us. The big pollutors are indeed the rich manufacturing companies which will just pass on any tax and carry on polluting as normal

[RICHLES01]

LOOK AT THE FACTS, not at your own inbread croinies sites, can you read actual pure data, It has NOT got warmer the past 10 yrs. Read the DATA, and to call me a lyer, at least I research what I say, obviously perhaps you should do the same before you comment

[stashcode]

the facts say to me that the global air temperature has risen since accurate readings commenced.

1: the last 10 years has not seen a rising *trend* in air temperatures, you are right, but those 10 years are still the warmest on record, as a result of the rising trend before those years.

2: if you are referring to the global mean air temperature it most certainly was not warmer in the 1970s. You may be selectively quoting satellite measurements which are unreliable for that period.

[RICHLES01]

Look at the facts, you sir /madam are the denier of truth.

[RICHLES01]

I think its you hom are the denier, look at the evidence and facts, before you spill out your crap. Religion is only a walking stick for the weak minded, a bit like yourself, again look at the facts

[RICHLES01]

It was warmer in the 70s and its a fact the past 10 years has shown NO increase in globe temperature, interesting interview with Lord Munkton and Greenpeace on Youtube. ----- Prblem is you WONT see these items on mainstream media because they dont want you to see it. Just be sheep and do as your told mentality. again investigate the evidence yourselves. the data is there for you

[DaveG37]

@RICHLES01 Again, complete nonsense easily refutable- see the IPCC, MetOffice or NOAA data. It wasnt hotter in the 70s, 17 of the last 20 years have been the hottest on record, as was each of the last two decades.

In fact, land-based measurements under-record the increases so temps are hihger than often reported. You claim to think for yourself- so go and do that after having read some of the science, and not the ramblings and conspiracy theory nonsense you are quoting

[RICHLES01]

Its also linked to the Bilderbergs and Rockafella groups. All presidents, primeministers and the new EU president is part of the same organization, They are trying to set up the New world order, and the carbon tax 100 Trillion per year was going to fund it, 100 Trillion worldwide, who do you think is going to pay for it !!!!!!!!

[RICHLES01]

google climategate, and the hidden e-mails they did not want you to see.

[DaveG37]

Google MetOffice tep record, or NOAA basic guide to climate science and then read some of it, you are talking nonsense I'm afraid.

[RICHLES01]

Propaganda, Its getting warmer by nature and with relation to the sun. We cant do anything about it, Its all about making money and new way of taxation. Al Gore the so called champion of climate change has conflicting interests in climate change, he will indirectly make multiple millions with the new carbon tax / credits. He has interests in a software company which companies will need to trade the cabon credits. investigate yourselves the rot runs very deep

[MarkNobes]

The coldest night of the 20th century was Wednesday Jan 13 1982.

The temperature fell to -20C (-4F) at Cheltenham and down to -18C in Dursley.

Thursday January 14 was the coldest ever day of the 20th century. The maximum temperature was -10C (14F), recorded at 1.30pm near Gloucester in freezing fog.

In Dursley it was -7C (19F) and also the coldest day of the 20th century.

[DaveG37]

thats weather, we are talking about climate.

17 of last 20 years globally have been warmest on record. Last 2 decades have also been warmest.

[MarkNobes]

@DaveG37 Hey, I'm on your side. I was quoting 1982 to prove the point that the recent UK winter did not break any cold weather records. You're so right, the last two decades have been the warmest in the modern instrumental record.

[gamadala]

***UK Government propaganda***

There was sea ice forming along the coast during the recent freeze yet the UK Met office have inform us that we are to have a mild winter.

More 'mild weather' forecast for new year's day.

[3mnoseyella]

ah a Scientist what affected are Chemtrails having on the weater?

[TheTenaciousJ]

blah, blah, blah no evidence

[chaelification]

its simple: if the climate changes faster than biological systems evolve - we're buggered.

So, whatever we can do to slow climate change - irrespective of blame - is good. However, its not just humand sho need to adapt but ALL plants and animals.

[sydneydoc]

So now we have evidence that the climate is changing ... duh !!!

... but of course no evidence whatsoever that man is causing it.

This woman is an idiot !

[DaveG37]

We have plenty of evidence, if you read some and didnt simply parrot others you'd know that.

See the UK MetOffice, NOAA or IPCC work and then make a judgement. Or tell me why solar physics or atmospheric chemistry or meteorology shows that basic physics understood since the 19th century is wrong. But you wont...

[fabbrit]

They can't even get the forecast right for the next day or week, so why should we believe their "models" for the next 100 years?!

[DaveG37]

well because short-term variability in the chaotic model makes that hard, but in a longer-time run you can use averages and statistical variations even out. So, pretty simple really. Next stupid observation you want me to refute?

[TheBunkell]

it's all garbage. don't do anything diferent its just a cycle anyway, and all the data used to prove climate change is taken from the points of least confidence and no data exhists before the last 100years anyway and only the last 20years is ever used to predict temperature rise in the future. The earth is 10billion years old so 20years really can't give an accurate picture of the future. Everything the government says we should worry about is wrong this woman is wrong. FACT!

[RustyTBone69]

This  comment is what happens when people spend all day listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and do not look at the evidence particularly ice cores. They don't matter. What matters is hacked e-mails. Hey, I think you are late for your town -hall protest !

[DaveG37]

Nope, your text is complete nonsense and easily refutable. Natural variation doe not explain the recent temperature anomalies and the only credible theory is human induced climate change. What you really mean no doubt is that this doesnt fit with your political beliefs, or you heard something on the radio.

[soldierpri]

So the world is getting hotter...but I still don't know how we draw a line between hotter weather and green house gases?? I get the greenhouse effect but that happens in closed, CONTROLLED environments: the earth is neither. How can we reduce all the other factors that influence the environment away and say for sure, "it is green house gases"?

I will continue to reduce my impact on the environment, including green house gases, but not because I am worried they cause climate change.

[stashcode]

I don;t think anyone is reducing other factors away - only saying the observed changes in other climate-controlling agents, eg solar output, water vapour, etc haven't varied enough to account for the change in global mean T. But when you calculate what the T response should be for the level of CO2 rise that we have observed in the last 60 years, the figure matches well with the observed T change.

you may chose not to believe there's a relationship, but it seems incredibly co-incidental if not.

[Ubinnhad]

You need to read more info from real scientists, not those who are unqualified, inept,sponsored, corrupt and badly biased. There are plenty of alternative theories but the mainstream press rarely publishes their findings.

[scudlington]

Perhaps the met office might like to guess what the weathers going to be like in Copenhagen during this utterly laughable but now sinister conference.

I'm praying for snow...lot's of snow.

[Ubinnhad]

Well they got snow!

I agree with you on the sinister side. Britains prime minister stated that sceptics are "flat earthers". The man is an unqualified idiot.

What alarms me even more is when people with no "climate" related degrees start suggesting we start putting huge mirrors in space, painting deserts white etc. I don't fancy the next coming mini ice age in my life thanks!

[pseudotruth]

For why the sun isn't the cause of the recent anomalous warming:

Google

Something Is X in the State of Denmark RealClimate

Read Peter Laut's letter

[pseudotruth]

HSEHL

Why you are wrong and why the majority of scientists are right:

watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

[pseudotruth]

HSEHL

'It would be beneficial to have a warmer climate' - based upon what evidence?

The best climate is the one that all current life evolved within and is adapted to.

Also much infrastructure will be lost to sea level rises.

You cite no evidence, only opinion, based upon half-truths and ignorance.

Cite your evidence from web of science journals only. No WaPo, WUWT, ClimateFraudit & etc.

[1ilith]

HSEL, here are the real facts. Climate change has happened many times before. This demonstrates how sensitive the climate is to disturbance of any sort...such as an increase in CO2 emissions. Solar radiation flux is monitored daily, no variations sufficient to cause the observed changes have ever been measured. CO2 has strong greenhouse properties..this has been known since 1826. Glaciers are shrinking. Ocean levels rose by 20 cm since 1880 according to 23 separate historical tide gauge records.

[MarkNobes]

Her in the UK we are having an incredibly mild autumn and people are mowing their lawns in November.

We have also just had the heaviest rainfall ever recorded.

The winters have been getting warmer and later for the past 15 years or so.

There is no cooling here.

[Ubinnhad]

Mark, I live in the UK, I last mowed my lawn in September. You quote the "heaviest rainfall ever recorded" - The Met Office states it is the wettest November since 1914, parts of Northern Scotland were drier than average. Even the Met Office admits it has changed how it measures rainfall since 1914. And did you know the world is over 4 billion years old, it wasn't created in 1914. So you need to be a bit more careful where you read data and stories from.

[MarkNobes]

@Ubinnhad Well you must have a very long lawn then. I'm sorry, but November was in the top 10 mildest since records began, and this is not a one off.

Our autumns are now a lot milder than in the 70s and 80s when we used to get frosts in October. Spring is also arriving earlier, too.

The rainfall that fell in Cumbria was the highest total recorded since records began.

Precipitation is increasing in the UK and there have been more frequent record-breaking floods in the last decade.

[MarkNobes]

@Ubinnhad I am a meteorologist, so I am always careful where I get my data from.

I am well aware that the World goes further back than 1914. Actually, some records go back to the 1850s anyway, but I am quoting from accurate records.

So we had a cold spell last winter and we're having a cold winter this year, but we had 18 years of mild winters before this.

No records have been broken for record cold. If you look at the winters between the 40s and 80s, some of them were much more severe.

[DaveG37]

Good for you, someone has to challenge some of the crap that is written

[Ubinnhad]

Oh another thing Mark.. the Department of Work and Pensions paid out record amounts of "COLD weather" payments last winter.. they didn't change the criteria.. the weather was colder.

[HSEHL]

Climate Change happened since the existence of earth.. It's the S U N that is the main driver of climate..

CO2 is not a pollutant and helps the vegetation and human and animal life.

All is a cycle.. The glaciers are growing in the last 2 years.

The oceans rose by 2 cm in the last hundred years.

It would be beneficial to have a warmer climate, but it is not happening.. Instead you will be freezing pretty good in England .

Taxes do not change climate. Your deception is exposed.

[element68]

great scientifically sound blurb

"the sun is the main driver of climate" -never been contested by anyone

-"CO2 is not a pollutant" -completely irrelevant, you've missed the point

-"glaciers growing" - flat out false, they've been diminishing faster than ever, easily found online

-"beneficial to have a warmer climate" -this doesn't even need to be addressed, it's just fucking hilarious. Btw how do you know this?

[DaveG37]

@HSEHL You dont really believe that do you? Its mostly nonsense or irrelevant. Are you joking? Or just trying to jump on a bandwagon?