The Global Warming Conspiracy

[bascule]

For those interested, Wikipedians have tracked those scientific bodies who are conspirators in the Great Global Warming Swindle. When global warming nutjobs talk about the "scientific consensus", here's who's involved:

 

(GFDL text courtesy Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

 

Statements by organizations

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

 

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]

 

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[7]

 

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[8]

 

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[9]

 

Joint science academies’ statement 2005

 

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [10], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

 

Joint science academies’ statement 2001

 

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitely acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[11]

 

U.S. National Research Council, 2001

 

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [12]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

 

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [13]

 

American Meteorological Society

 

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

 

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [14]

 

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

 

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [15]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

 

Other concurring organizations

 

Other scientific organizations that have issued concurring position statements on climate change include the following.

 

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." [16]

* American Geophysical Union, also endorsed [17] by the American Institute of Physics: "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." [18]

* Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London: "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [19]

* Geological Society of America: "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [20]

* American Association of State Climatologists: This statement noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction... Whatever policies are promulgated with respect to energy, it is imperative that policy makers recognize that climate, its variability and change has a broad impact on society. The policy responses too should also be broad...Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change." [21]

* Australian Medical Association: "Failure to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has the potential to cause significant global public health problems... The AMA believes that an effective emissions control program could be instituted without having a negative impact on the Australian economy. This can best be achieved by combining energy conservation with new alternative technologies that would reduce dependency on fossil fuels... The AMA believes that the Federal Government should implement a National Greenhouse Policy that engages all Australians in ensuring that we meet the Kyoto target and start to dramatically cut our greenhouse pollution." [22]

* American Chemical Society: "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [23]

* American Quaternary Association: "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [24]

 

Recent surveys of scientists and scientific literature

 

Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming. Few have been conducted within the last ten years.

 

Oreskes, 2004

 

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[4] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

 

Bray and von Storch, 2003

 

A survey[5] was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected [6] but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues[7] [8] [9]. The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions by the same individual. The survey required entry of a username and password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[10][11] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions".

 

Older surveys

 

Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997

 

In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [26]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

 

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. 39% agreed and 33% disagreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period," [27] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

 

Bray and von Storch, 1996

 

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. [28] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.

 

The abstract says:

 

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

 

The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

 

The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%...

 

...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years... mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...

 

...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

[John Cuthber]

Good God!

When a theory is put forward by such obvious shysters as the American Meteorological Society; the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India; the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. National Research Council, it's a wonder anyone believes it.

[geoguy]

The global warming ideologues remind me of Creationists. They 'believe' rather than think.

 

Global warming? Who knows? The whole discussion is so full of hysterics and exaggeration that the baby may get tossed out with the bathwater. As a geologist I'd give the science of global warming an 'F'. It's unfortunate that science is now determined by polls and political correctness.

[gcol]

The heretical thought that is buzzing around in my mind is this:

 

Global warming may well be a fact, and who am I to doubt such an august, numerous, vociferous and well-funded body of opinion (majority and concensus always rules by virtue of the right of might), but prove to me that warming due to carbon dioxide is a sole cause , and not a secondary effect of natural variation in the sun's output.

 

If the variable sun is the prime cause, we are in the business of mitigating the effect of a cause we can not control. If carbon emissions are both cause and effect, possibly we can do something positive.

 

Let us have some intellectual honesty here. I dont like jumping on trendy band wagons, no matter which worthy flag they are flying.

 

Another reason for scepticism: When looking to solve a crime, a prime method is "follow the money". There sure is one helluva load of money to be made from the global warming by governments and big business but sadly not by by ordinary foot-sloggers like you and me. The only thing we have to look forward to is ever rising taxation justified by the "save the planet" brigade.

[bascule]

but prove to me that warming due to carbon dioxide is a sole cause

 

It's not a sole cause. There are many radiative forcings at play:

 

[bombus]

Oh pleeease.

 

The idea that manking has little influence is preposterous. Go to any major city you like and the temperature is around 3% warmer than the surrounding countryside.

 

This sunspot nonsense is pseudo-science. Our atmosphere shields us from solar flares so sun spots will have no noticeable effect on climate.

[ecoli]

The idea that manking has little influence is preposterous. Go to any major city you like and the temperature is around 3% warmer than the surrounding countryside.

 

We don't really know if that can affect can be seen as strongly on the global scale, or what other factors may be feeding into it.

 

 

Why are you dismissing sunspots as pseudoscience? The atmosphere doesn't block all heat, produced by solar flares.

[CPL.Luke]

sun spots can cause a change in temperaure, but if you look at the solar trens of the past hundred yeaers they clearly are not affecting the current warming trend.

[1veedo]

Lol the sun has been getting "cooler" (we've been getting further away) for around 8k years and people are always like, "Global warming? Maybe it's the sun!"

 

That's almost as funny as the people who claim that the ocean is giving off CO2 when it's actually the largest CO2 sink on the face of the planet.

 

Wait, I take that back. What's even more funny is the people who think global warming is a big conspiracy ran by socialist illuminate to take over the world.

 

 

Btw for anybody who has doubts, what makes you think that you know better then the entire scientific community? You think out of all the thousands of scientists from around the planet who research the climate that you have found some sort of hole that everyone else has missed? Unless you publish some peer-review, I'm not impressed by any of your "global warming is wrong because..." arguments.

[ecoli]

Lol the sun has been getting "cooler" (we've been getting further away) for around 8k years and people are always like, "Global warming? Maybe it's the sun!"

sources?

 

Btw for anybody who has doubts, what makes you think that you know better then the entire scientific community? You think out of all the thousands of scientists from around the planet who research the climate that you have found some sort of hole that everyone else has missed? Unless you publish some peer-review, I'm not impressed by any of your "global warming is wrong because..." arguments.

I've talked to several prestigious climatologists at my uni, while they agree that global warming is occurring (duh) and that humans are impacting it, they don't exclusively think that this is the only cause feeding into it. This is the position I'm willing to accept.

 

What I find funny is the "socialist illuminate" are ignoring this position held by many well-studied scientist (despite the fact that it isn't very different from their own) in order to spread fear amoung the public for votes and political gain... though that's just my un-proven opinion. But, let's not let this thread turn political.

[Pangloss]

Just as a personal observation, I think the IPCC actions (this one and the previous one) are some of the most dramatic moments we've witnessed in all of science history. Regardless of what one might think of their conclusions, the fact that this many intelligent, objective, analytical human beings got together and came to such a monumental level of agreement, in one of the most contentious and debate-prone of all human endeavors (research science), is utterly astounding.

 

One simply cannot look objectively at this information and come to the conclusion that the facts have not been looked at, the all opinions have not been weighed, or that insufficient critical thinking has been done. Put three scientists in a bistro and you will rarely get them to agree on what portion of the check is theirs. And yet here they are, agreeing to an astounding degree and to an undeniable level of depth and detail.

 

One way or another, we are witnesses to one heck of an interesting piece of history.

[Naturalist]

I'm not decided over whether or not Global Warming is being influenced by human activity. The model that suggests this is pretty simple though: Green House Effect is what keeps this earth at a certain temperature (warmer) but an increase in the amount of substance in our atmosphere that causes this effect would would reduce the escape the amount thermoenergy that escapes.

 

Forgive any inaccuracy of terms or data.

 

I became with solar activity and climate change just a couple weeks ago after listening to Nigel Calder (science writer) and advocate of non-anthropogeothermo (no human relationship between global warming). I don't care much for what Nigel Calder has to say, but I'm interested in the climatologists that do or don't think Global warming is anthropocentric.

 

Here are some links:

 

Journalist Chris Mooney blogs about GW

 

Chris Mooney is currently dealing with "Framing" but if you go back on some of his earlier posts you can the investigation he's done on Global Warming but as geoguy said, there is a lot of politics involved... Chris Mooney also discusses this aspect of Global Warming.

[Naturalist]

I became familiar* - fill in the blanks for anything else I missed *

[Dr. Dalek]

Btw for anybody who has doubts, what makes you think that you know better then the entire scientific community? You think out of all the thousands of scientists from around the planet who research the climate that you have found some sort of hole that everyone else has missed? Unless you publish some peer-review, I'm not impressed by any of your "global warming is wrong because..." arguments.

 

Anyone who doubts God, what makes you think that you know better than the entire Catholic Church?

 

Anyone who doubts Alien Abduction, what makes you think that you know better than the entire UFO Community?

 

Anyone who doubts Psychic Sylvia Brown, what makes you think that you know better than the entire Viewing audience of The Montel Williams show?

 

Groups of people tend to want to stick together when it comes to opinions for fear they will be ridiculed or Ostracized. In my opinion individuals are more likely to be objective than groups of people working together, or individuals that are highly subjective to the influences of a large group.

 

Now look we know that Global Warming is a natural Phenominon that mankind could be influencing it. The problem is that there is more uncertainty about wheather the phenominon is anything to be worried about or not than people tend to acknowlage.

[bombus]

One of the primary reasons for the earth's climate cooling at the end of the creataceous is thought to be the spread of deciduous forests, locking up carbon dioxide in the form of wood and thusly a significant amount was no longer permanently in the atmosphere. Much of this carbon was taken out of the cycle when the trees got fossilized as coal. Similarly, carbon as oil was taken out of the system.

 

By burning fossil fuels at the rate we are, we are re-introducing this carbon back into the cycle and it is done so quickly that there is not the time for it to be coverted into non-atmospheric carbon within the carbon cycle. Temperatures are just bound to rise as a result. It may be a temporary situation in the geological timescale but, on such a timescale 10,000 years is a blink of an eye! Not good for humans!

[bascule]

To reiterate, yes solar forcings are causing the earth to warm, and the 11-year sunspot cycle does affect the climate, but in a cyclical manner.

 

However, CO₂ is overwhelmingly the predominant cause.

[Naturalist]

I'm with bombus and bascule on this, UNLESS someone has experimented with green house gases learning that they do not isolate thermoenergy.

[Naturalist]

The use of the word "learning" in that sentence was gramatically incorrect right? ... UNLESS someone has experimented with green house gases and learned that they do not isolate thermoenergy. *** Sorry everyone.

[ecoli]

The use of the word "learning" in that sentence was gramatically incorrect right? ... UNLESS someone has experimented with green house gases and learned that they do not isolate thermoenergy. *** Sorry everyone.

Atmospheric gasses have been shown experimentally to retain heat many times, I believe. However, they also increase the albedo of the atmosphere and reflect light. This is called the whitehouse affect. As I understand it, this tends to have a more local effect on climate than the greenhouse affect. I wonder, has this effect been quantified as compared to the greenhouse affect, yet?

[Dr. Dalek]

Atmospheric gasses have been shown experimentally to retain heat many times, I believe. However, they also increase the albedo of the atmosphere and reflect light. This is called the whitehouse affect. As I understand it, this tends to have a more local effect on climate than the greenhouse affect. I wonder, has this effect been quantified as compared to the greenhouse affect, yet?

 

Good question. If not it should be.

Since I have never heard of it in any of the Global Warming literature I have ever read I can only assume that either it is not important, or it has been carelessly overlooked.

[bascule]

Atmospheric gasses have been shown experimentally to retain heat many times, I believe. However, they also increase the albedo of the atmosphere and reflect light. This is called the whitehouse affect. As I understand it, this tends to have a more local effect on climate than the greenhouse affect. I wonder, has this effect been quantified as compared to the greenhouse affect, yet?

 

I've typically heard the effects of reflective aerosols referred to as "global dimming"

 

As you can see from the climate change attribution graph, the negative forcing effect of reflective sulfate aerosols is modeled.

[thechronic]

Lol the sun has been getting "cooler" (we've been getting further away) for around 8k years and people are always like, "Global warming? Maybe it's the sun!"

 

That's almost as funny as the people who claim that the ocean is giving off CO2 when it's actually the largest CO2 sink on the face of the planet.

 

Wait, I take that back. What's even more funny is the people who think global warming is a big conspiracy ran by socialist illuminate to take over the world.

 

 

Btw for anybody who has doubts, what makes you think that you know better then the entire scientific community? You think out of all the thousands of scientists from around the planet who research the climate that you have found some sort of hole that everyone else has missed? Unless you publish some peer-review, I'm not impressed by any of your "global warming is wrong because..." arguments.

 

What makes you think you know better than the entire scientific community?

 

http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=1693

[bascule]

http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=1693

 

Why do you keep bringing up the Oregon Petition? And why are you claiming that 17,000 people represents the "entire scientific community"? 17,000 represents 3% of the total population of doctoral scientists in the United States, and they don't even require a PhD, all it takes is a bachelor's. Nor do they require you hold a degree in a remotely relevant field.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

 

Only 15% of the claimed signatories hold a degree in the physical or environmental sciences. 60% hold degrees in completely unrelated fields like the social or medical sciences.

 

And what's more, it's based on outdated research and many of the reported climate scientist signatories have changed their minds:

 

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[10] ”

 

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

 

“In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[11] ”

 

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

 

“Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

 

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.

[bombus]

Good question. If not it should be.

Since I have never heard of it in any of the Global Warming literature I have ever read I can only assume that either it is not important, or it has been carelessly overlooked.

 

It has been considered. Higher temperatures means more water vapour which means more clouds which means more reflection of light.

 

BUT, its very complex as the higher the temp the less water vapour condenses - so less clouds (confused yet?).

 

Also, the melting of the ice caps and tundra means that land that was very reflective becomes less reflective, so temps increase, and as more carbon is released as frozen ground starts to decompose temperatures increase even more.

 

It'll be the carboniferous revisited! If we're really unlucky it will be the Permian revisited...

 

Although, I recently spoke to a very very clever Prof. from Oxford Uni who told me that it appears that our oceans appear to be cooling overall. Not sure what's going on there as corals are dying 'cos they get too hot. He wasn't sure either!

[Dr. Dalek]

Although, I recently spoke to a very very clever Prof. from Oxford Uni who told me that it appears that our oceans appear to be cooling overall. Not sure what's going on there as corals are dying 'cos they get too hot. He wasn't sure either!

 

Maybe the reports of coral die off were exaggerated by the media, that happens a lot.

Or maybe there is another reason they are dying that has been overlooked.

 

Also "cooling overall" is not suggesting that it is cooling everywhere some locations may be cooling and the other are heating up a little, and the coral just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Also could u help me find that oceans cooling thing in writing, I have some Vendettas to settle.