Fire and Ice: The Day After Tomorrow

[vinny]

Another thing I found very odd for the time of the year are the birds: they are singing like it's Spring, but what I find more odd is that I seem to be the only one to notice this. Very few people, I have daily contact with, don't seem to see or mention it....

I noticed it :)

 

[treesparrow]

Can't say I've noticed any changes in the singing times/habits of birds(at least in the UK). Song thrushes, mistle thrushes, robins, wrens and dippers are all singing at the moment but this is no different than previous years - all the above species start singing early ( in January- some even December).

Perhaps a more objective assessment of the effects of climate change on avian populations can be shown by the fact that the egg-laying dates for 20 UK species are earlier by 8 to 9 days over the last 25 years. See

www.bto.org/research/advice/ecc/eccsection61.htm

And that 27 different species of spring migrants now have earlier arival dates on average than they did in the recent past. See

www.bto.org/research/advice/ecc/eccsection62.htm

 

[Mike]

This weekend the B-movie 'Ice' was playing on a cable channel. Kinda of a low budget, low quality 'The Day After Tomorrow.' I didn't watch all of it (it is that bad), but as mentioned on another thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4631.msg30693#msg30693 TV seems to be cranking up the disaster stuff at a higher level lately. Also played this weekend was the movie 'The Day After,' which is about the affects of a nuclear attack on the US. Here is a synopsis of the 'Ice' movie:
http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:272455

The made-for-TV disaster flick Ice first aired on German television under the title Eis: wehn die Welt erfriert on November 29, 1998. Thanks to a precipitous temperature drop on the sun, a second ice age hits Los Angeles, resulting in unseasonable 70-degrees-below-zero weather and a general breakdown of society. L.A. cop Robert Drake (Grant Show) joins forces with his girlfriend (Eva La Rue), his ex-wife (Audie England), and a black convict (Flex) who thinks that the recent cold snap is a government plot against African-Americans, the better to commandeer a submarine and head to the (temporarily) warmer climes of the Equator. Beyond its usual apocalypse-flick trappings, the film nearly collapses under the weight of visual symbolism. American viewers first saw Ice when it was telecast by ABC on July 22, 2000.

 

[Keenan]

Fire and Ice is a fascinating article. I printed out a copy to give to my to friend to read.

I recently heard on Coast to Coast (www.coasttocoastam.com) - another internet alternative news site with nightly podcasts - that there is a Russian Scientist who reported recently that the US government is suppressing information about a coming sudden catastrophic climactic cooling starting after 2013 (because of a change in the Sun cycle) and that the US government is planning on having a police state fully in place by then. I don't remember the name of the Russian scientist. Anybody else hear about this?

This article, "Fire and Ice", in combination with some other things I have been hearing lately, has definately started to alter my perception of my long-held global warming paradigm and has put some cracks into my confidence level regarding the "consensus scientific model" about the future of global warming.

One thing that I just can't seem to resolve is this: The global fossil fuel industry is a 2 Trillion Dollar a/year Industry - the most wealthy and powerful (and probably deceitful and pathological) entity in the world. Wide-spread public alarm about catastrophic global warming preceived to be caused by greenhouse gas emissions probably poses the biggest potential threat to this entity's ability to maintain (or increase) their future profit levels. I can't think of any other force in the world, except an economic depression, that could destroy a big chunk of this profit level other than widespread public alarm for global warming, coupled with the belief that fossil fuel emissions are the main culprit. As a corollary, this fossil fuel mafia would be motivated in the extreme to underhandedly manipulate this public perception away from alarm about global warming, or belief in the connection with fossil fuel emissions, to try to head off any concerted effort to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. They would have practically endless resources at their disposal to finance certain disinformation strategies aimed at shifting these perceptions (and probably already are channelling lots of resources in this direction as we speak). ExxonMobile's financing of anti-global warming propaganda is the most notorious to date that I know of.

So, this reality makes navigating this particular labyrinth even more complicated for me. On the other hand, I no longer trust "consensus science" or consensus anything anymore to lead me to the truth. I'm willing (or more willing than ever before) to question just about any of my long-held paradigms. But one thing I know is that I trust right-wing or capitalist (which are often synonamous) sources of information the least of all, based on my past experience. So, that's the quandary I find myself in.

Someone posted an article in this thread from the Wall Street Journal, "INCONVENIENT QUESTIONS". The Wall Street journal has been about the most anti-environmental and pro capitalist propaganda rag in my experience, and so ranks as one of the least credible sources for this kind of information in my book. The fact that the Wall Street Journal is in agreement with this alternative notion is troublesome to me.

Another thing that kind of bothers me is the fact that I found an article titled, "Fire and Ice"
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
published in 2006 by a right-wing think tank BMI (Business and Media Institute), whose purpose is "Advancing the Culture of Free Enterprise in America". The thrust of this version of "Fire and Ice" is basically poking fun at the "scientific consensus" on global warming:

"Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
[...]
In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow."

What an unfortunate coincidence that Laura's article uses the same title as the one from the right-wing BMI. I wonder if Laura has read this BMI article, and what she thinks about this.

 

[Laura]

What an unfortunate coincidence that Laura's article uses the same title as the one from the right-wing BMI. I wonder if Laura has read this BMI article, and what she thinks about this.

No, I haven't, and yes, it is an unfortunate coincidence. I'll try to later, but very quickly, does it talk about heating and then rapid cooling which is what the title I chose was intended to convey?

I do think that human activity contributes to the whole global warming thing, just not as much as is touted. In other words, the cyclical nature of the situation is completely downplayed. Because, of course, if you talk about the cycles, then you have to talk about what happens immediately AFTER it gets very warm!

Unfortunately, our appeal for help to spread the word has not resulted in sufficient response for us to do a single thing about it more than we are already doing. But, I guess we ought not to be surprised. Our readership really goes through the roof only when people are anxious and afraid and things are going south... but when the sleep system is working, they pooh pooh what we are saying (even if a bit nervously) in spite of the fact that, time and again, we call 'em accurately.

We aren't in this to play games and get rich or famous. There's no future in it, for sure. But there MIGHT be a future in getting at least a few million people awake and aware! Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the system has unlimited funds to effectively stymie any effort to do so and those efforts are designed to defame, wear you out, and wear you down. It is only knowing that, that has kept us going this long. The day may come, certainly, when there are no more resources and no more energy left in us to keep going. What's more, if the people don't care themselves, we can't make them.

 

[Anders]

I just read through the article mentioned by Keenan and the feeling I got is that it was a piece of damage control. One was left with the feeling that all the talk of climate change is hot air (no pun intended) and that one should take a conservative view of these things. There was no mention of cyclical change. Yes, it did mention heating followed by rapid cooling while it was discussing the movie 'The day after tomorrow', but it gave no credence to it. Below is their own conclusion and recommendation as stated in the article:

Conclusion
What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.


Recommendations
It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.�


“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.�


“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.�

That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.

Some other important points include:

Don’t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Don’t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,� “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

 

[Ennio]

Last night I caught the tail end of the Larry King live show, the theme of which was the subject being discussed here. I do not know how closely the guests, all scientists, were in agreement with the probability of glacial rebound in particular. What was clear was that they all agreed that something was indeed up and it had to be addressed more seriously by the media, gov't, and world community etc. etc. At the very end of the program King trots on his resident meteorological spin monkey to get the last word in. The guy ends by saying that there is indeed some global warming occurring and we can look forward to more draught and heat waves - and that was basically it!! End of program! Another variant of the "move along, nothing to see here" thing.

And then there's this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/01/31/welch_interference_in_science_stunning?mode=PF

Welch: Interference in science "stunning"

January 31, 2007

BURLINGTON, Vt. --U.S. Rep. Peter Welch says it was a "stunning personal experience" to hear federal scientists say they had been stymied from talking about climate change.

"There was a story about a scientist who got authorized to speak at a conference. He was prohibited from using the phrase 'global warming.' He was allowed to say 'global,' and he could say 'warming,' but he couldn't put them next to each other. It became a charade," Welch said.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which Welch serves, is holding hearings on the administration's handling of the global warming issue. The panel's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the administration appeared to want "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Welch said he had read about scientists being muzzled, but, "It's a stunning personal experience to hear directly from scientists whose life work has been compromised, who live in fear of retaliation or compromised careers if they adhere to their code of ethics as scientists."

The comments came as two advocacy groups -- the Government Accountability Project and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- shared findings with the committee from a survey of about 300 government scientists.

The survey found nearly half the scientists had seen or experienced pressure to delete words like "global warming" from written material. About 40 percent said thad had seen changes to materials that changed their scientific meanings.

The White House maintains it was trying to bring balance to reports on global warming.

------

Information from: The Burlington Free Press, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com

 

[Niall]

Humans Blamed for Climate Change

.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

That title is just dripping with contempt! So it's humans' fault eh? As oppsed to psychopaths and their psychopathic institutions of course.

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Global climate change is "very likely" to have a human cause, an influential group of scientists has concluded.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.

It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms.

The findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year.

"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.

The report, produced by a team tasked with assessing the science of climate change, was intended to be the definitive summary of climatic shifts facing the world in the coming years.

IPCC PROJECTIONS:

- Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
- Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
- Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
- Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
- Increase in heatwaves very likely
- Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

The agency said that it would use stronger language to assess humanity's influence on climatic change than it had previously done.

In 2001, it said that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.

Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.

They projected that temperatures would probably rise by between 1.8C and 4C, though increases as small as 1.1C (2F) or as large as 6.4C (11.5F) were possible.

In 2001, using different methodology, the numbers were 1.4 (2.5F) and 5.8C (10.4F).

Computer models of climate do not generally include water coming into the oceans as ice caps melt. So the IPCC had to decide whether to exclude this from its calculations, or to estimate the effect of a process which scientists do not understand well but which could have a big impact.

They used the former, more conservative approach, projecting an average rise in sea levels globally of between 28 and 43cm. The 2001 report cited a range of nine to 88cm.

As for climate change influencing the intensity of tropical storms in some areas of the world, the IPCC concluded that it was likely - meaning a greater probability than 66% - that rising temperatures were a factor.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said: "It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report.

"If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are," he told delegates in Paris.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said the findings marked a historical landmark in the debate about whether humans were affecting the state of the atmosphere.

"It is an unequivocal series of evidence [showing that] fossil fuel burning and land use change are affecting the climate on our planet."

Mr Steiner, whose agency oversees the operation of the Kyoto Treaty, added: "If you are an African child born in 2007, by the time you are 50 years old you may be faced with disease and new levels of drought."

He said that he hoped the IPCC report would galvanise national governments into action.

But a study published on the eve of the IPCC report suggested that the international body's previous reports may have actually been too conservative.

Writing in the journal Science, an international group of scientists concluded that temperatures and sea levels had been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed in the last report, which was published in 2001.

The paper compared the 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change report with what has actually happened.

The models had forecasted a temperature rise between about 0.15C-0.35C (0.27-0.63F) over this period. The actual rise of 0.33C (0.59F) was very close to the top of the IPCC's range.

A more dramatic picture emerged from the sea level comparison. The actual average level, measured by tide gauges and satellites, had risen faster than the intergovernmental panel of scientists predicted it would.

The IPCC's full climate science report will be released later in the year, as will other chapters looking at the probable impacts of climate change, options for adapting to those impacts, and possible routes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

[ark]

"In 2001, it said that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability..

Notice that did not tell us what is the probability that their estimates of probabilities are completely wrong. They do not tell us what is the probability that taking into account other factors may change these estimates completely. They do not present the extreme positions of different scientists. What they present for the media is politically adjusted junk with a diluted and twisted scientific content. Most of the journalists will swallow it without any thoughts whatsoever.

 

[Vulcan59]

Humans Blamed for Climate Change

Well since humans are the cause then perhaps getting rid a significant portion of them might be an answer!! I can just see "them"(psychopaths)working behind the scenes, on how to get us normal people, to accept this theory of theirs. After all, a lot of "them" have been opening calling for it over the years and now they seem to have found the justification. The previous reasons for wanting to control overpopulation was usually more because food and other resources getting scarce. OSIT

 

[Fifth Way]

Well since humans are the cause then perhaps getting rid a significant portion of them might be an answer!!

You nailed it. That is exactly the bottom line of the spin! The justification for global genocide. And it is the perfect reasoning for all the fundamental religious groups to say: See: The Lord (insert god of your choice) is going to punish you for your sins. You didn't deserve any better.

Only if it would be mainstream knowledge that the threat comes form the solar system humanity would want to unite to face and work the danger.
That will not be allowed to happen (as long it is up to them).

 

[Keenan]

I do think that human activity contributes to the whole global warming thing, just not as much as is touted. In other words, the cyclical nature of the situation is completely downplayed. Because, of course, if you talk about the cycles, then you have to talk about what happens immediately AFTER it gets very warm!

What would be your estimate of the contribution of human activities vs natural cycles as a percentage of the causality of global warming today, and in the coming century?

Would it be low enough relative to natural cyclical effects that we don't really have to worry about fossil fuel consumption?

Exxon would like us to believe that it is close to zero, but they of course have zero credibility on this issue.

Exxon tries to bribe scientist
Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:47:51 -0800

>Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study
>by Ian Sample
>
>
>Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby
>group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to
>undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
>
>Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
>ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush
>administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the
>shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
>Climate Change (IPCC).
>
>Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
>
>The UN report was written by international experts and is widely
>regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change
>science. It will underpin international negotiations on new
>emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of
>which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last
>year and invited to comment.
>
>The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than
>20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush
>administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the
>vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
>
>The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,
>attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and
>dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported
>by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully
>explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
>
>Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to
>cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global
>warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to
>distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of
>the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
>
>"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review
>undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the
>public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to
>take on sound scientific advice," he said.
>
>The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI,
>who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists,
>economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent
>review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC
>report.
>
>"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says
>that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other
>group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We
>don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent
>policy."
>
>One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the
>report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't
>know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to
>happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said
>Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
>
>The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the
>Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April.
>It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the
>planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another
>1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
>
>Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's
>most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the
>world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report
>will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific
>understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more
>convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming
>due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to
>unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted
>international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.
>However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own
>agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
>
>Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a
>thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual
>Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of
>their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science;
>they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a
>suitcase full of cash."
>
>On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will
>launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report.
>Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes
>human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed
>VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes
>there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
>
>Dan Newth
>971.645.0459 cell
>Emails may be monitored by Intelligence Agencies without warrant or
>legal preceeding. Words such as chosen, van, golf, football, beach,
>credit card, bank, face, fraud, freedom, rouge, government and rail
>may trigger increased surveillance of your electronic activities.
>

This seems awefully brazen of them. Usually you would expect that this kind of bribery by the oil mafia would not be so public.

 

[Laura]

What would be your estimate of the contribution of human activities vs natural cycles as a percentage of the causality of global warming today, and in the coming century?

Would it be low enough relative to natural cyclical effects that we don't really have to worry about fossil fuel consumption?

Exxon would like us to believe that it is close to zero, but they of course have zero credibility on this issue.

Well, I'm certainly not in a position to estimate a percentage!!! Doing that would require a LOT of data and I don't even think that the experts in the field can do it and that is why the issue is so contentious. But, I am doing some reading that is going to lead to some writing very soon on the subject where I hope to present some data for the reader that may add to our understanding of the cyclic nature of these events, even if what human beings are doing certainly isn't helping.

As for the use of fossil fuels, well, obviously, that has contributed to the problem; how could it not? If you think about how many people there are on the planet, how much driving and heating and flying and so on that is going on, it is certainly equivalent to or in excess of the stuff that might be given off by an erupting volcano. So, we could very likely minimize the atmospheric effects on our planet by that much if humans weren't burning fossil fuels. So it certainly isn't zero impact as the oil companies would like us to think!

The thing is, the planet has been accommodating volcanic eruptions and equivalent influxes of similar stuff into the atmosphere throughout history. I mean, if you really think about the size of the planet relative to humans and their activity, vis a vis say, a volcano... well, the whole "human activity is doing it" thing just doesn't hold water.

For example, look at this:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/126313-+Two+New+Books+Confirm+Global+Warming+is+Natural%3B+Not+Caused+By+Human+Activity

and this:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/126089-Russian+academic+says+CO2+not+to+blame+for+global+warming

this:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/125391-Over+4.5+Billion+people+could+die+from+Global+Warming-related+causes+by+2012

For that matter, scrolling through the SOTT archive of environmental stories is quite enlightening. I found the following yesterday while doing some housekeeping on SOTT. Note the date. Note that the report they are talking about is the one that is supposedly being released NOW, only less than two months ago, they were talking about it in entirely different terms!!!

http://signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/122987-UN+downgrades+man%26%2339%3Bs+impact+on+the+climate

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Richard Gray
Telegraph
Mon, 11 Dec 2006

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.

The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.

Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."

The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.

It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.

Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.

Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.

Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.

He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.

"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."

The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.

The report states that snow cover in mountainous regions will contract and permafrost in polar regions will decline.

However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said.

Now, this is a funny article because, on the one hand, they reduce the human impact, but insist that human action can do something to reverse the trend... odd.

The question is, of course, why are we dealing with such a controversy? Is it just simply a distraction?

 

[vinny]

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

a funny article all round. it looks to me as though they are here sneakily referring to chemtrails (which are extensive and possibly have a cooling effect by increasing earth's albedo). which are also manmade. what a tangled web.

 

[Keenan]

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

a funny article all round. it looks to me as though they are here sneakily referring to chemtrails (which are extensive and possibly have a cooling effect by increasing earth's albedo). which are also manmade. what a tangled web.

Yea, that's exactly what I thought about when they referred to "aerosol sprays". I wouldn't be surprised if Exxon has been bankrolling at least part of the chemtrail "research". Of course, that begs the question: With such a massive aerosol spray operation going on since the late '90s, utilizing hundreds of tanker aircraft all over the world, why haven't they been able to stop or reverse the rise in temperatures? Or, on the other hand, I wonder if the rise in temperatures would have been a lot higher without the chemtrails?

Here where I live in Northern California, which is a chemtrail hot spot with almost daily spraying, I've definately noticed the cooling effect. Local weather stations here have recorded definate drops in temperatures right after observed chemtrail spraying. Since I have solar electric panels powering my house, I am particularly peaved at the drop in output with all these aerosol releases interfering with the solar energy reaching my panels. Oh well, I suppose the investment was still worth it, not having to be as dependent on the grid, and not having to fund the fossil fuel mafia (also my cars run on biodiesel, so I am now fossil fuel free, yes!).

Anyway, I am just waiting for the announcement by the Bush Oiligarchy at some point: "My fellow Americans, today we are announcing that we now have a proven mitigation program for staving off global warming that will protect our economy at the same time, by using aerosol spraying, so just keep driving as much as you have been and don't worry..."