Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

OR he did nothing wrong

ah, ok then.

 

[Flying Crane]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[SUP][16][/SUP]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[SUP][21][/SUP]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[SUP][22][/SUP]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[SUP][23][/SUP]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[SUP][24][/SUP]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [SUP][25][/SUP]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[SUP][26][/SUP]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[SUP][27][/SUP]


Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[SUP][31][/SUP]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[SUP][32][/SUP]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][33][/SUP]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[SUP][34][/SUP]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[SUP][35][/SUP]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[SUP][36][/SUP]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[SUP][37][/SUP]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[SUP][38][/SUP]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[SUP][39][/SUP]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[SUP][40][/SUP]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[SUP][41][/SUP]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[SUP][42][/SUP]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][43][/SUP]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[SUP][46][/SUP]
• Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[SUP][47][/SUP]
• Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[SUP][48][/SUP]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[SUP][51][/SUP]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][55][/SUP]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[SUP][56][/SUP]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[SUP][57][/SUP]
• George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[SUP][58][/SUP]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[SUP][59][/SUP]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[SUP][60][/SUP]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[SUP][61][/SUP]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[SUP][62][/SUP]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[SUP][65][/SUP]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[SUP][66][/SUP]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[SUP][67][/SUP]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[SUP][68][/SUP]
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[SUP][69][/SUP]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[SUP][70][/SUP]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [SUP][71][/SUP]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[SUP][72][/SUP]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[SUP][73][/SUP]

give a link for your list. where did you find this?

 

[ballen0351]

ah, ok then.

Prove he did..... You accuse him of doing something wrong prove it.

 

[ballen0351]

give a link for your list. where did you find this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[Flying Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

alright, now you are learning something.

from the same article:

As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[SUP][14][/SUP] A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[SUP][15][/SUP] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).

sort of a steep hill to climb.

OK, from the link to Judith Curry's wiki site, since she is first on the list:

While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[SUP][12][/SUP] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[SUP][12][/SUP] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[SUP][12][/SUP]In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[SUP][13][/SUP] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[SUP][12][/SUP]
In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. In the site's "About" section, the blog's purpose is stated as "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[SUP][3][/SUP]
Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[SUP][14][/SUP] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[SUP][15

so yes, she has issues, but she does not dispute the underlying premise.

i haven't had time to examine all of these, but either way, it's a very short list. but this is by far the best bit you or billc have put forth yet.[/SUP]

 

[ballen0351]

but this is by far the best bit you or billc have put forth yet.[/SUP]

Gee thanks dad...your pretty damn arrogant

 

[Makalakumu]

the problem really is huge. I suspect that a few thousand ships and planes spraying salt water into the air isn't going to solve it. I admit I lack the scientific background to ultimately pass judgement on that one, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.



Maybe, maybe not. But far far more will die as the global mean temperature continues to rise.



I don't see anything offensive in this. I think you see conspiracy where none exist.

It's not a conspiracy to say that what is being proposed is a global system of government that is meant to manage the human side of the carbon cycle. I'm very skeptical of this idea in terms of actually addressing climate change and I think there is a history behind these efforts that really needs to be understood. I think the most conspiratorial thing I've suggested is that the people pushing global government are using climate change as an excuse.

If climate change is really a problem that is dangerous to humans, this mixing of agendas could actually prevent a solution from occurring in time to fix it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]

from Dyson's wiki page:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[SUP][42][/SUP] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[SUP][42][/SUP]
​

He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[SUP][42][/SUP]
Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[SUP][45][/SUP]

again, he agrees with humanities actions contributing to global climate change, tho he has issues with how the discussion is carried out.

 

[Flying Crane]

Gee thanks dad...your pretty damn arrogant

or maybe you just got lucky with this one, and you cannot actually claim any of the credit.

 

[Flying Crane]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]

from his wiki site:

Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[SUP][4][/SUP] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[SUP][8][/SUP] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10]

so, kinda weird theory, not widely accepted by the scientific community.[/SUP]

 

[ballen0351]

or maybe you just got lucky with this one, and you cannot actually claim any of the credit.

LOL says the guy using Wiki to disprove a Wiki link get over yourself

 

[Flying Crane]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections


Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]

from her wiki page:

n 1992, Baliunas was third author on a Nature paper[SUP][10][/SUP] that used observed variations in sun-like stars as an analogue of possible past variations in the Sun. The paper says that
"the sun is in an unusually steady phase compared to similar stars, which means that reconstructing the past historical brightness record may be more risky than has been generally thought".By 1995, she had entered the global warming controversy. In January of that year the Marshall Institute published a review she had written for them, "Are Human Activities Causing Global Warming?" disputing the IPCC Second Assessment Report and arguing that "predictions of an anthropogenic global warming have been greatly exaggerated, and that the human contribution to global warming over the course of the 21st century will be less than one degree Celsius and probably only a few tenths of a degree." She concluded with the view that "even if fears of anthropogenic global warming were realized - a concern which finds no support in the scientific data - there is no significant penalty for waiting at least two decades before taking corrective action to reduce global CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions."[SUP][11][/SUP] The work of Willie Soon and Baliunas, suggesting that solar variability is more strongly correlated with variations in air temperature than any other factor, even carbon dioxide levels, has been widely publicized by lobby groups including the Marshall Institute[SUP][12][/SUP] and Tech Central Station,[SUP][13][/SUP] and mentioned in the popular press.[SUP][14][/SUP]
Baliunas is a strong skeptic in regard to there being a connection between CO[SUB]2[/SUB] rise and climate change, saying in a 2001 essay with Willie Soon:
But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case... measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which humanmade carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.[SUP][15][/SUP]The claim that atmospheric data showed no warming trend was incorrect, as the published satellite and balloon data at that time showed a warming trend (see satellite temperature record). In later statements Baliunas acknowledged the measured warming in the satellite and balloon records, though she disputed that the observed warming reflected human influence.[SUP][16][/SUP]
Baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations: "If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."[SUP][17][/SUP] [SUP][18][/SUP]
Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper[edit]

Main article: Soon and Baliunas controversy
In 2003, Baliunas and fellow astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology in Climate Research, which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variability and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[SUP][19][/SUP]
The circumstances of the paper's publication were controversial, prompting concerns about the publishers' peer review process. An editorial revolt followed, with half of the journal's 10 editors eventually resigning, and the publisher subsequently stated that critics said that the conclusions of the paper "cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided" and that the journal "should have requested appropriate revisions prior to publication."[SUP][20]

[/SUP]

so, some problems. but she's got her position.

 

[ballen0351]

Yes we have already established these folks don't agree with the status Quo. That's why they were posted as the OPPOSITION

 

[Flying Crane]

LOL says the guy using Wiki to disprove a Wiki link get over yourself

it's actually reasonably reliable, tho i would not quote wiki in a scientific paper that i was trying to get published.

the funny thing is, i often use the SAME wiki article to disprove what you are proposing.

 

[ballen0351]

Hmmmm

baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations: "if scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."[sup][17][/sup] [sup][18]

[/sup]

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes we have already established these folks don't agree with the status Quo. That's why they were posted as the OPPOSITION

sure, but looking at their background and history helps us see the big picture. and then make intelligent and reasonable conclusions.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hmmmm

[/sup]

sure, that's part of her position.

 

[ballen0351]

it's actually reasonably reliable, tho i would not quote wiki in a scientific paper that i was trying to get published.

the funny thing is, i often use the SAME wiki article to disprove what you are proposing.

Except you have not disproved anything. Your just showing things YOU don't agree with.

 

[ballen0351]

sure, that's part of her position.

Yep as well as mine

 

[Flying Crane]

Except you have not disproved anything. Your just showing things YOU don't agree with.

i'm showing you that the wide scientific community doesn't agree.