Haha, I was sincerely hoping this would link to an Onion Article or something with a sardonic tone such as this...but I guess the fox news link is just as humorous.
The Article that Fox News References (the Met Office) states that ice Artic Ice extents have decreased annualy over the past decades (figure 14), illustrates the increasing of the surface temperatures (figure 2)... Not really sure where Fox News got their information, but i am sure they are not biased in their assessment or opinion on the matter.
A variation in any data series does not justify global temperature change as incorrect, we all know elementary statistics here.
By "better" I certainly hope you mean "more humorously (on the brink of depressingly) inept journalism".
The telegraph talked about a "crisis meeting" (in addition to the other nonsense describe above) that even Fox News had the integrity not to include...because it lies between an intentional obfuscation to pure fabrication. This meeting was set in 2009 and can be found on the IPCC website, which includes a handy-dandy schedule of meetings as well. As Ed Hawkin indicated, they appear to be a little confused about the term “crisis”, even when given an explanation.
So, as sometimes sarcasm can get lost in type-form, I wanted to make sure that everyone knows that “better” was clearly meant to be sarcastic.
Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not convinced that Arctic Sea Ice change is a result of anthroprogenic CO2 emissions. Soot? Maybe. Natural causes due to ocean circulation changes as part of a regular cycle? Possible.
But to make a claim of a change in trend based on one year. That's just stupid. It's about as responsible as attributing every tropical cyclone or tornado to man-made climate change. (That's sarcasm, just like rconnor's...).
However, speaking about one-year trends, and hurricanes and tornados - where's the Atlantic-basin hurricanes? The US is having it's longest drought of major hurricane landfalls in recorded history, and there almost wasn't even been any actual hurricanes in the entire Atlantic basin yet this year (until Humberto strengthened into a Cat 1 fish-churner today). Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is quite low YTD. Total US tornado count is also on the -3 sigma side of low...
==> The US is having it's longest drought of major hurricane landfalls in recorded history, and there almost wasn't even been any actual hurricanes in the entire Atlantic basin yet this year
Shhhh!!!!!
Good Luck
-------------- As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
My opinion, it is quite facetious of the human race to believe that we have as much affect as we think we do. I don't believe sufficient correct data exists, together with a truly coherant understanding of cause and effect as it relates to the nearly infinite variables, to definitively say that, "Yes, it is human induced change".
On that note, is a butterfly's flap of the wing in the Canary Islands responsible for the hurricane related destruction of New Orleans?
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
I think it's totally reasonable to think that mankind may be having an effect on our climate. Maybe even warming it. In some way or another, which might include carbon, direct heat, albedo changes, and the changes in microclimates associated with agriculture and urban sprawl.
I think it's completely ridiculous to think that letting Goldman Sachs manipulate an artificially created "Carbon Trading Market" does any good for anyone other than Goldman Sachs. And their stockholders.
Where I have issue, is how the pundits go "Globe is warming therefore Carbon Trade/Tax." There are quite a few intermediary steps there, that responsible people would investigate.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
"it is quite facetious of the human race to believe that we have as much affect as we think we do"
But is it correct to assume that humans have NO effect on the earth overall? There are people who believe that all of man's activity has had NO effect on the earth's climate.
No, I would not say that we have had no effect. However, heat island, which would be an obvious contributor, has more to do with paved surfaces (heat storage) than does any immediate effect of carbon. Higher humidity rates associated with a concentrated population also must have a significant effect on localized heat storage capacity. There are figuratively a million variables exclusive of carbon that are having an effect. And then the shocker . . . . the earth has gone through periods of widespread tropical conditions alternating with arctic conditions long before the prevalence of a large industrialized population. Hmmmmm, how does one explain such outliers? Coal deposits = ancient tropical forests? Present day ice fields covering ancient tropical regions. Seems to me that the only constant is change. Temp goes up, temp goes down, temp goes up, temp goes down, ad nauseum.
As for carbon and pollution credits, these are an incredibly ridiculous notion. But someone figured out how to make a lot of money out of them, so I don't see those going away any time soon. I try to boycott companies that offer a more expensive "carbon conscious" option, be it shipping or merchandise. Just one more way to fleece stupid people out of their cash.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
"As for carbon and pollution credits, these are an incredibly ridiculous notion."
Not ridiculous at all. it's a brilliant scheme by investment bankers and wall st types to make billions of dollars being the middle men, trading paper, so that people can feel better about themselves. The only thing it accomplishes is to make the middle men lots of money, but, hey, our whole society is based on the premise that the wall st/investment types are the most important people in the world, and we need to use tax money to ensure they get bonuses.
So if we all pay taxes to fund forest managment, to which the goverment appears to do poorly at, and the trees suck up carbon. Who gets the carbon credits for the forest that we pay taxes to manage?
Looks to me that we should all be getting a tax credit for federal forest carbon credits, based on the amount of tax we pay. And just maybe we should get something for state forest managment.
And while we are at it, when do I get credits for the trees on my land?
Looks to me the whole carbon credit thing is a scam with the goverment taking my property value without compensating me for it.
During the lifetime of my mother, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. An increase of this magnitude over such a short period of time is unprecedented in the history of the planet. Where did this CO2 come from? Is it reasonable to believe that an increase this great would have no effect?
Is warming a result of co2, I mean, has this been definitively proven? Coincidence does not necessarily mean correlation. Furthermore, could it be that CO2 rise follows temperature rise? Is the horse pulling the cart or is the cart pushing the horse? Temp and CO2 graphs overlayed can be interpreted either way, can they not?
What caused the cyclical temperature rises of the past eons of time? The earth has been hotter in previous times than it is now.
I believe the short answer to this is "the jury is still out". There is so much pseudo science and rabid politicking on both sides of the story, global warming is more of a religion than a science at this point in time. There is a scant flavor of fact interspersed in a sea of emotion and rhetoric.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
I'm reminded of a quote from Michael Crichton: Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
Yes carbon is a problem. The matter is settled among the scientific community.
And no... We engineers are not qualified to fully critique what science has been done. We all know our specific
areas fairly well I am sure but there is virtually no overlap with climate science.
There are reams of science demonstrating the CO2 greenhouse effect. How this trapped heat is eventually distributed
and the effects of it are far less certain, although it seems reasonable that it will eventually cause civilization
serious problems.
As far as the economics of the issue, all that is discussed is the economic damage from more expensive energy. When I look
around at the energy waste evident everywhere I question this reasoning. Energy is so cheap that it is
wasted in huge quantities every day where a minor effort would fix it.
How many unloaded and squeaky clean high capacity pickup trucks run up and down the road at 70 mph just for the childish
emotional needs of the owner.
I see machines left running where i work for days with nobody considering at all to just push the stop button. The money
is not an issue.
I think we could do much better without serious pain if only there were an economic incentive, -> TAXES
