Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
I'm enjoying it - would prefer more. The time and area I grew up in, winter meant *winter*. Bitter cold and huge snowbanks. But that's what makes skiing/skating/snowshoeing all that much more fun.
Now that I live slightly south in an zone that is mildy more temperate, real winter is more hit and miss. Too many years I've spent in the backyard at 2am flooding a rink week after week only to hit a warm spell that turned it to mush.
Whilst there is some argument about ice volumes, the vast majority of measurements suggest that, on balance, planetary ice is melting. When north polar ice vanishes completely in summer for the first time (possibly in as little as five years) it is likely that warming will become more apparent.
Anybody who still believes in "global warming" after the past few years hasn't been paying attention to the weather. It's been colder just about everywhere. (Hence the switch to "climate change," etc. Must hang on to *something* that humans can be blamed for in order to gain political clout!)
Actually quite to the contrary. At least where I live. When I was young, there was snow every winter. Every winter holiday we spent the whole days on our sleds. I purchased one for my nephew a few years ago for christmas. This winter was the first time he could use it. This is the "hardest" winter in 15 years where I live with a laughable 10 centimeters of snow.
And the press is going nuts, because nobody is used to what would have been considered a normal winter 20 years ago. It's winter time and it really is winter. You know with freezing temperatures and even snow! What a sensation! Like in the old days!
That we are even discussing this here is a proof that there must have been a change in climate in the past decades.
That we are even discussing this here is a proof that there must have been a change in climate in the past decades.I'd say it's more like proof that politically-motivated pseudo-research got enough airtime to make "global warming" a topic for discussion. The Climategate emails certainly show some posturing, if not outright manipulation of the peer-review process. More neutral science shows that the earth has gone through many warming and cooling trends for thousands of years.
As far as ice melt is concerned, Al Gore will be happy to know that arctic ice is actually up by something like half a million square miles from this time last year. (Not that ice melting is necessarily that unusual. For instance, did anyone wonder why Greenland is called that? As in, perhaps it was once green? And how about all the historical references to warm-climate vegetation growing in places that are too cold to support it now?)
I am happy to admit that I do not know what the truth is but I would be unhappy to go along with those who bury their heads in the sand and say that there is no problem when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
We should be looking at this and studying it very closely. Governments should be collaborating on this issue and if there is any chance at all that it is being caused by man then we should be taking action. We owe it to future generations since the consequences of getting it wrong are so dire.
I watched a documentary on Channel 4 over a year ago where they "debunked" the current theory on global warming. Various scientists of differing views were interviewed and the ones who were not in line with current doctrine seemed more persuasive and less excitable than the "prophets of doom".
As far as I know that documentary has never been debated or refuted officially. There were two claims (substantiated by evidence) that impressed me.
1. Global Warming was invented by Margaret Thatcher as a weapon against the coal miners during the coal strike. She allegedly called in some top scientists and they "interpreted" information in a way that made coal look really bad. Then , allegedly, one of them published a scientific paper which became a big hit and more importantly a gravy train for the true believers who perpetuated the myth by interpreting data with a biased viewpoint. The timing works on this one AFAIK there was no mention of global warming before 1984.
2.The graphs in "An inconvenient truth" which correlated c02 in the atmosphere with ocean temperature over the centuries appeared to show that when CO2 increased so did the ocean temperature. They took these graphs and stretched them latterly so that the time-scale became more detailed, and the graphs showed that the increase in CO2 came approx. 200 years after the increase in sea temperature. Their conclusion was that Al Gore had confused cause and effect, and that the high levels of atmospheric CO2 200 years after the peak in sea temperature was caused by emissions from sea life; algae, plankton, bacteria, seaweed etc. caused by the increased temperature of their habitat.
The conclusion of the documentary was that global warming is a fact but it is not man made and is a cyclical occurrence that has happened many times throughout history.
I know the scientific community believes there is ample proof that global warming is man made, but tell that to Copernicus - they were once convinced that earth was the centre of the universe.
I think that the theory of global cooling will now resurface. I remember when I was a boy we were being told that a new mini ice age was on its way, but that was way pre Margaret Thatcher...