carbon is trading at 5 cents the ton

Originally posted by Taoman
Edit: ..."collapse of the great global warming scare..."

It was the Chinese engineered collapse of Copenhagen that has changed the picture, for the interim, in carbon trading.

Global warming and climate change are not equivalent. Evidence of global warming enough to persuade and still persuade the great majority of scientists is but part of the total p ...[text shortened]... n tell, I am one of the highly convinced. I think there might be a few others out there too.

"Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm

Originally posted by joneschr
He did - the URL he included. It's an article on the telegraph.

Hi joneschr sorry it’s taken me so long to reply pressures of work and all that. I read the provided article at the URL and unless I missed something I saw nothing resembling any citation in that article either. Does a newspaper count as a reliable primary source when it makes no citations in relation to data used?
I’m always interested in peoples opinions but amused when numbers are littered amongst some ones pints of view in what appears an attempt to science them up. Or to provide a basis for that statement when very little if any analysis is provided demonstrating the derivation of opinion from data.
It just strikes me as rhetorical technique and more at home in the world of debate and politics rather than science.
cheers jon

Originally posted by Taoman
"Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it."

Yeah, that's one of the (many, many) problems I have with mainstream global warming dogma. It cannot be refuted, because as soon as you try, its adherents invent an argument to "fit" this new data, which they had never mentioned before, is actually a perfectly predicted effect of their pet dogma. And that just isn't science.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yeah, that's one of the (many, many) problems I have with mainstream global warming dogma. It cannot be refuted, because as soon as you try, its adherents invent an argument to "fit" this new data, which they had never mentioned before, is actually a perfectly predicted effect of their pet dogma. And that just isn't science.

Richard

"...adherents invent an argument to "fit" this new data..."

It is based on serious scientific research into anomalies between ice cover and temperature changes and effects on wider regions around the Barents-Kara Sea north of Norway and Russia. The research gives no impression of "dogma" or "arguments to fit", but rather has all the hallmarks of unbiased scientific research,
clearly focussed on facts and data. You are free to disagree on scientific reasoning if you wish, but not on sheer opinion.

I read research sometimes that appears to go against the idea of global warming (one lives in hope still), but not very often, because they are not arising much. They are far outnumbered by research from quite different disciplines, that without some "conspiratorial" lining up their "stories", are all pointing to the same inevitable conclusion. There are unknown and unclear aspects of their own admission, but all indicators about the direction of the planets climate and its effects are now abundantly clear.


I quote a section of the article.

>>>

"....focusing on the Barents-Kara Sea north of Norway and Russia where a drastic reduction of ice was observed in the cold European winter of 2005-06. Those surfaces of the sea lacking the ice cover lose a lot of warmth to the normally cold and windy arctic atmosphere. What the researchers did was to feed the computer with data, gradually reducing the sea ice cover in the eastern Arctic from 100 percent to 1 percent in order to analyse the relative sensitivity of wintertime atmospheric circulation.
"Our simulations reveal a rather pronounced nonlinear response of air temperatures and winds to the changes of sea-ice cover," Petoukhov, a physicist, says. "It ranges from warming to cooling to warming again, as sea ice decreases."

An abrupt transition between different regimes of the atmospheric circulation in the sub-polar and polar regions may be very likely. Warming of the air over the Barents-Kara Sea seems to bring cold winter winds to Europe. "This is not what one would expect," Petoukhov says. "Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea-ice won't bother him could be wrong. There are complex teleconnections in the climate system, and in the Barents-Kara Sea we might have discovered a powerful feedback mechanism."

edit: typographical