Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 264798 reads   2 posts
  • Wed, Dec 10, 2008 - 10:00pm

    #11

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

[quote=stocks321]Solar science forum poll — Is global cooling on the way?

Yes — 76 votes
No — 7 votes
[/quote]

So then explain why all the world’s glaciers and polar caps are melting….?  At rates never seen before? 

  • Wed, Dec 10, 2008 - 10:06pm

    #12

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Too late…?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change

As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the
Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series
looks at the crucial issue of targets

At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter
University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his
expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong.
Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same.
His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political
circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them
terrified.

Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at
Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from
the frontline of the war against climate change.

Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media
headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were
soaring way out of control – far above even the bleak scenarios considered
by last year’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change
had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very
bad.

"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work
and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being
I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had
got it completely wrong."

Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned
silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have
risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the
coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra
pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets
debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and
"dangerously misguided" at worst.
In the jargon used to count the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in
the Earth’s thin layer of atmosphere, he said it was "improbable" that
levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm).

The CO2 level is currently over 380ppm, up from 280ppm at the time of the
industrial revolution, and it rises by more than 2ppm each year. The
government’s official position is that the world should aim to cap this
rise at 450ppm.

The science is fuzzy, but experts say that could offer an even-money
chance of limiting the eventual temperature rise above pre-industrial
times to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. (We have had 0.7C of that
already and an estimated extra 0.5C is guaranteed because of emissions to
date.)

The graphs on the large screens behind Anderson’s head at Exeter told a
different story. Line after line, representing the fumes that belch from
chimneys, exhausts and jet engines, that should have bent in a rapid curve
towards the ground, were heading for the ceiling instead.

At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a
catastrophic 4C average rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said,
could only be achieved if rich countries adopted "draconian emission
reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned economic
recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come
close. Lost cause

Anderson is not the only expert to voice concerns that current targets
are hopelessly optimistic. Many scientists, politicians and campaigners
privately admit that 2C is a lost cause. Ask for projections around the
dinner table after a few bottles of wine and more vote for 650ppm than
450ppm as the more likely outcome.

Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Environment Department and a former
head of the IPCC, warned this year that the world needed to prepare for a
4C rise, which would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and
water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause floods that would
displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe
towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets.

Watson said: "We must alert everybody that at the moment we’re at the
very top end of the worst case [emissions] scenario. I think we should be
striving for 450 [ppm] but I think we should be prepared that 550 [ppm] is
a more likely outcome." Hitting the 450ppm target, he said, would be
"unbelievably difficult".

A report for the Australian government this autumn suggested that the
450ppm goal is so ambitious that it could wreck attempts to agree a new
global deal on global warming at Copenhagen next year. The report, from
economist Ross Garnaut and dubbed the Australian Stern review, says
nations must accept that a greater amount of warming is inevitable, or risk
a failure to agree that "would haunt humanity until the end of time".

It says developed nations including Britain, the US and Australia, would
have to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next
decade to hit the 450ppm target. Britain’s Climate Change Act 2008, the
most ambitious legislation of its kind in the world, calls for reductions
of about 3% each year to 2050.

Garnaut, a professorial fellow in economics at Melbourne University,
said: "Achieving the objective of 450ppm would require tighter constraints
on emissions than now seem likely in the period to 2020 … The only
alternative would be to impose even tighter constraints on developing
countries from 2013, and that does not appear to be realistic at this
time."

The report adds: "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on
a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason
for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the
meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to
history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm
– a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective
agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of
business as usual."

Henry Derwent, former head of the UK’s international climate negotiating
team and now president of the International Emissions Trading Association,
said a new climate treaty was unlikely to include a stabilisation goal –
either 450ppm or 550ppm.

"You’ve got to avoid talking and thinking in those terms because
otherwise the politics reaches a dead end," he said. Many small island
states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming
triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. "It’s really difficult for
countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory.
It’s not going to work."

A new agreement in Copenhagen should concentrate instead on shorter term
targets, such as firm emission reductions by 2020, he said. Worst time

The escalating scale of human emissions could not have come at a worst
time, as scientists have discovered that the Earth’s forests and oceans
could be losing their ability to soak up carbon pollution. Most climate
projections assume that about half of all carbon emissions are reabsorbed
in these natural sinks.

Computer models predict that this effect will weaken as the world warms,
and a string of recent studies suggests this is happening already.

The Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide has weakened by
about 15% a decade since 1981, while in the North Atlantic, scientists at
the University of East Anglia also found a dramatic decline in the CO2
sink between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s.

A separate study published this year showed the ability of forests to
soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide – that caused by human activity – was
weakening, because the changing length of the seasons alters the time when
trees switch from being a sink of carbon to a source.

Soils could also be giving up their carbon stores: evidence emerged in
2005 that a vast expanse of western Siberia was undergoing an
unprecedented thaw.

The region, the largest frozen peat bog in the world, had begun to melt
for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago. Scientists believe
the bog could begin to release billions of tonnes of methane locked up in
the soils, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The
World Meteorological Organisation recently reported the largest annual
rise of methane levels in the atmosphere for a decade.

Some experts argue that the grave nature of recent studies, combined with
the unexpected boom in carbon emissions, demands an urgent reassessment of
the situation. In an article published this month in the journal Climatic
Change, Peter Sheehan, an economist at Victoria University, Australia,
says the scale of recent emissions means the carbon cuts suggested by the
IPCC to stabilise levels in the atmosphere "cannot be taken as a reliable
guide for immediate policy determination". The cuts, he says, will need to
be bigger and in more places.

Earlier this year, Jim Hansen, senior climate scientist with Nasa,
published a paper that said the world’s carbon targets needed to be
urgently revised because of the risk of feedbacks in the climate system.
He used reconstructions of the Earth’s past climate to show that a target
of 350ppm, significantly below where we are today, is needed to "preserve a
planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life
on Earth is adapted". Hansen has suggested a joint review by Britain’s
Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research
findings since the IPCC report.

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, argues that suggestions the IPCC
report is out of date is "not a valid position at all".

He said: "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature,
but 30 or 40 years of literature. We’re not dealing with short-term
weather changes, we’re talking about major changes in our climate system.
I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the
long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."

At Defra, Watson said: "Even without the new information there was enough
to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely
essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even
harder. It was already very urgent to start with. It’s now become very,
very urgent."

  • Wed, Dec 10, 2008 - 11:07pm

    #13
    switters

    switters

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 19 2008

    Posts: 435

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

[quote=affert]

I would like to challenge the claim that there is very little consensus about Global Climate Change. 

A very complete, thoughtful look at the issue is available from the "How It All Ends" video series  (available on youtube). The series was put together after the author had his first video attacked by many climate change doubters.  The series covers every argument against climate change I’d ever heard before, and many that I’d not heard.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg is the initial video).  The whole series is over 6 hours long, but is organized for people with certain types of objections can watch certain videos to hear their objections answered.  http://www.manpollo.org/education/objections/objections.html is a link that points individual objections to peices of the video series that address specific objections.I would recommend watching the first movie, then (if you don’t think you have time to watch the whole thing) jump to those objections you have heard.

[/quote]

I know some people on this site that should watch those videos.  But they won’t.  Too bad.

 

  • Thu, Dec 11, 2008 - 11:42am

    #14

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.   

“Since I
am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any
funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
 Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology  and
formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been
called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”  

Warming
fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come
to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.”
– UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.  

“The IPCC
has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It
doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize
has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who
are not geologists,”
– Indian geologist Dr. Arun D.
Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.  

“The
models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only
are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios
that do not include, for example, solar activity.”
– Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico  

“It is a
blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a
fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
– U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

“Even
doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have
little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as
clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”
– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.”
– Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the
statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an
Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  

“For how
many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the
planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on
?"
– Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the
2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer
reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  

“Gore
prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found
myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful
for explaining climate changes after the fact.”

Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made
warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC
committee.  

“Many
[scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from
promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers
ruined.”
– Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating
an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The
present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an
ideology, which is concerning.”
– Environmental
Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2
emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing
nations walking barefoot.”
– Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
– Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for
Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.  # #

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

 

 

  • Thu, Dec 11, 2008 - 11:53am

    #15

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

On September 13th, Time magazine (click) informed their readers that
"Northwest Passage’s navigability was dramatically demonstrated".

Two
ships coming from the opposite directions met and astonished Eskimo
cheers from both crews echoed through the rock-bound channel. 😉

The only problem is that it was not September 13th, 2008 but September 13th, 1937. 🙂

Well, it shouldn’t be too shocking because the current Arctic temperature is pretty much what it was in the late 1930s

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/09/time-mag…st-passage.html

 

 

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; ice up over 9% from last year

We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They
say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time
last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in
their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite
irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice
free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/…from-last-year/

 

 

TV Networks Wrong On Warming; Arctic Ice Still There

Wrong again! It must stink being a network global warming alarmist. They just can’t seem to get their stories straight.
It’s
only been a couple months when the networks were screaming about Arctic
ice disappearing this summer. And, no surprise, they were entirely
wrong. By 1.74 million square miles.

This fits an ongoing pattern of media hype about
climate change where networks no longer report the issue with any sense
of objectivity. A study published by the Business & Media Institute
earlier this year showed how rarely dissenting voices were included in
the climate debate. The study found that global warming proponents
overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average
for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a
slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal
at nearly 38-to-1.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/20…ice-still-there

Astronomical Influences Affect Climate More Than CO2, Say Experts

“It’s
practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global
cooling,” he said. Not something you will read about in the media.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti…px?RsrcID=35857

 

  • Thu, Dec 11, 2008 - 12:34pm

    #16

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Emissions are in fact observed to be worse than the worst case scenario….. 

  • Thu, Dec 11, 2008 - 12:41pm

    #17
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1404

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

I get so tired of the poorly informed and intentional deniers trumpeting the fact that in 2008 the Arctic sea ice extent was greater than it was in 2007, as some kind of evidence that global warming has been disproved.  Yes, it was greater in 2008, making it only the second lowest annual ice extent on record.

Here’s the latest evidence from NSIDC.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ 

 

Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual

 Overview of conditionsAverage Arctic sea ice extent for the month of November was 10.63 million square kilometers (4.10 million square miles).Ice extent for the month of November was 580,000 square kilometers (220,000 square miles) greater than November 2007 but 680,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 November average.

Truth is, ice continues to melt all over the globe.

  • Sat, Dec 13, 2008 - 01:44pm

    #18

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Today there is a new Golden Fleece hanging on the tree, andanyone with half a science diploma can become a member of Jason’s merry
band of Argonauts. Just make sure that your proposal is directed toward
finding yet another contributor to anthropogenic global warming. From
Cow Farts to Whales Singing Off-Key, the field is wide open as long as
you observe a few simple rules:

1. Your results must support AGW, otherwise your grant won’t be renewed.
2. If your data doesn’t support your predetermined conclusion, change the data.
3. The one with the shortest date to Armageddon gets the biggest bucks.

The
short-term profits are enormous, and for a while at least, the
incompetent and dishonest "scientists" of the world will be able to
enjoy a reasonably regular paycheck. But in the end, it must all
eventually collapse like the dot-com bubble, with the sad end result
being that anyone wearing the title of scientist will likely be viewed
with the same respect as a junk bond trader
.

Jim Peden

  • Sat, Dec 13, 2008 - 01:47pm

    #19

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

WARMISTS CAUGHT IN HOCKEYSTICK FRAUD; ALSO NEVER RELEASE DATA, ONLY CONCLUSIONS

 It
is scientific laxity, and scientific malfeasance, and scientific
double-dealing. It is deliberate concealment of adverse results. It is
refusal to reveal data. It is abuse of power and betrayal of trust. It
is made-up math. It is Science and Nature and the NSF not enforcing
their own archiving requirements. It is scientific check-kiting.

As
I said above, the silence on these matters from the majority of
scientists of all disciplines has been deafening. The placid acceptance
of this behavior threatens the credibility of science as a whole. Where
are the elders thundering about transparency and replicability being
the foundation of science, and publicly urging these mountebanks to
come clean and archive their data? Where are the scientists with the
backbone to call a spade a blasted digging implement?

The
Hockeystick was deliberate scientific fraud. Mann knew about and
concealed adverse results. He knew the whole thing rested on the
bristlecones. He knew that if you remove the bristlecones the
hockeystick disappears, and he hid that, and published anyway. Now we
have Bishop Hill’s lovely summary of Wahl and Amman and the Jesus
paper. There is scientific crime going on, the perpetrators are
concealing the evidence, and almost everyone is whistling and looking
at the sky,

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe…nce-policy-4511

  • Sat, Dec 13, 2008 - 01:51pm

    #20

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Paulson is a warming zealot:

 

"It isn’t every day that the Sierra Club finds itself welcoming a
nomination to George W. Bush’s Cabinet while ultraconservatives decry
the move," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club’s executive director.

"But
on issues like global warming, Hank Paulson appears to favor managing
risk rather than cooking the books," Pope said. "It is heartening that
someone of Mr. Paulson’s stature in the financial world is willing to
say that immediate action must be taken to combat global warming."

Last
year under Paulson’s direction, Goldman Sachs issued an eight-page
position paper on environmental policy, saying it accepts a scientific
consensus, led by United Nations climate experts, that global warming
poses one of the greatest threats this century.

Like Bush, the
Goldman Sachs statement endorsed a market for businesses to buy and
sell rights to emit greenhouse gases, saying it will spur technology
advances by companies "that lead to a less carbon-intensive economy."
But, it added, "Voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change
problem," a position contrary to the Bush administration’s view.

The
Nature Conservancy, under Paulson’s direction, likewise supports a
mandatory approach. It supports legislation by Sens. John McCain,
R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to cap U.S. greenhouse gases at
2000 levels, within five years. The Senate defeated the measure last
year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…60101181_2.html

The banking cartel is using the green agenda to suppress energy production.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 1,010 total)

Login or Register to post comments