Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[ballen0351]

Most of the science is undertaken by university researchers in many cases PhD students. They are not paid billions. Many work off government grants. The guys promoting "there is no global warming" are the same guys who were paid to say there was no health problem associated with passive smoking.

I haven't bashed oil. My only reference to reducing greenhouse gasses was in regard to coal fired power generation and clearing of forests. I did say that the oil companies were paying billions to discredit reputable scientists and that is still the case. No one had to pay anything to discredit their lackeys as the rubbish they peddle does that free of charge.

But you are missing the whole point. Until people like you who aren't unintelligent can accept that the world has a problem the situation will just get worse. There is global warming, it is already causing climate change, the changes are already impacting the environment and it is not going to resolve anytime soon. if at all, unless some really bright people can come up with some really smart ideas really soon.
:asian:

The individual researchers my not be getting billions but the schools are getting paid big money. Im not missing the point I've never said the climate doesn't change it is always changing that's why we go in and out of ice ages. Its been that way for millions of years. I find it amusing that people are going nuts over gradual warming trends when we are in the process of warming up from the last ice age. To think a few smoke stacks over 50 years has made such a huge change on a process that's millions of years old well we are a little full of ourselves

 

[K-man]

The individual researchers my not be getting billions but the schools are getting paid big money. Im not missing the point I've never said the climate doesn't change it is always changing that's why we go in and out of ice ages. Its been that way for millions of years. I find it amusing that people are going nuts over gradual warming trends when we are in the process of warming up from the last ice age. To think a few smoke stacks over 50 years has made such a huge change on a process that's millions of years old well we are a little full of ourselves

You are right in saying that the world cycles in and out of ice ages but in the past it has happened over thousands of years. Now there is rapid change, not gradual, and it is going to have massive consequences. If you think that a few smoke stacks have caused the problem, that is simplistic. If you don't believe millions of smokestacks and billions of cars have had an effect, that is naive.

During the past century, sea levels along California's coast have risen about seven inches. If global warming emissions continue unabated, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century, inundating coastal areas with salt water, accelerating coastal erosion, threatening vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupting wetlands and natural habitats.
Excerpts from Our Changing Climate: A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center, Draft Report, 2006
http://www.climatechoices.org/impacts_coasts/

 

[ballen0351]

You are right in saying that the world cycles in and out of ice ages but in the past it has happened over thousands of years. Now there is rapid change, not gradual, and it is going to have massive consequences. If you think that a few smoke stacks have caused the problem, that is simplistic. If you don't believe millions of smokestacks and billions of cars have had an effect, that is naive.

Yep the farther away from the Ice age we get the warmer we are and the faster ice melts so the higher the water rises. 7 inches over 100 years however is hardly alarming

 

[Flying Crane]

You are right in saying that the world cycles in and out of ice ages but in the past it has happened over thousands of years. Now there is rapid change, not gradual, and it is going to have massive consequences. If you think that a few smoke stacks have caused the problem, that is simplistic. If you don't believe millions of smokestacks and billions of cars have had an effect, that is naive.

you've said it much more gently than i would have.

and that link to california coast rising sea levels, from 2006. what is proving to be true is that predictions from even five years ago are way behind in the actual changes being observed and measured. like 60 years behind.

 

[Flying Crane]

regarding Climategate, one of Billc's favorite boogeymen, once again from Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at theClimatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summiton climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet.
The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs,[SUP][6][/SUP] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[SUP][7][/SUP] Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP]
The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December.[SUP][12][/SUP] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers, and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[SUP][13][/SUP] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that theEarth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[SUP][14][/SUP]
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[SUP][15][/SUP] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[SUP][16][/SUP] Thescientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[SUP][17]


and another excerpt...

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[SUP][28][/SUP]According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[SUP][21][/SUP]
Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[SUP][29][/SUP] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[SUP][21][/SUP] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[SUP][29][/SUP] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[SUP][20][/SUP] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[SUP][30][/SUP] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP]
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[SUP][32][/SUP] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[SUP][33][/SUP] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[SUP][36]

lots more there, this is just a taste of reality. When Billc throws something into the mix, everyone needs to understand that there's a whole lot more to the story that he is not telling. Billc is either willing to perpetuate the fraud, or is himself a blatant liar.[/SUP]
[/SUP]

 

[ballen0351]

you've said it much more gently than i would have.

lol internet Rambo don't hold back tough guy

and that link to california coast rising sea levels, from 2006. what is proving to be true is that predictions from even five years ago are way behind in the actual changes being observed and measured. like 60 years behind.

all natural rise and fall warm and cold. its been going on for millions of years

 

[ballen0351]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/

John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a “hoax.” It is, but it’s more than that, it’s criminal.
Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue:
Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.
Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.
Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?

 

[James Kovacich]

That is true, we also had an ice age. But it scares that so many would discount what the majority of the world is saying. The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[billc]

Yes, this video, again, explains the trick used by the climate "scientists" to hide problems in their data, and their emails show them hiding and destroying data, as well as trying to get editors of peer reviewed journals fired if they had the gall to allow different opinions on man made global warming in the journals...the left wing journalists covered for them but the emails actually exist...

A video that explains the " trick"...the trick used to hide the temperature decline, not the math "trick" they lied about...




The discussion of the "trick" comes in at minute 2 on the video...before that he explains why other scientists agreed with something that wasn't true...they trusted a lie...
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...ck-fraudulent/


That is a easy call for anyone with an IQ over 10.

Mann plotted a thousand years of proxy data as reliable, and then threw out the post-1960 proxy data – because they didn’t show the warming he was out to prove.
The proxies showed exactly what thermometers did at the time – before Hansen altered the thermometer data.
As alarmist hero Richard Muller said – “we don’t do that in science”

 

[billc]

That is true, we also had an ice age. But it scares that so many would discount what the majority of the world is saying. The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...

actually, they aren't saying that...they are saying the little people must sacrifice advanced life styles while the "scientists" politicians and their supporters continue their advanced lifestyles...and if you live in Africa, or any other third world country you will be expected to forgo technological advancement in the name of this religious/science movement...

 

[billc]

From Wikipedia...

proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion

From the video I posted, the scientist shows that the "trick" the climate gate conspirators used was to leave out a large chunk of data that made their findings wrong....that was the trick and the liberal believers in journalism just accepted what they were told about the " trick."

The scientist in the video points out this lie at the 2 minute mark in he video, and he also points out that other scientists fell for this trick because they didn't't bother to check it themselves, they just,accepted what Mann and his buddies told them...and they don't like the skeptics,either which also made it easy for them to ignore the truth...

 

[ballen0351]

The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I agree with taking care of the planet but don't feed me a bunch of Bull poo about how were all going to die if I don't drive a Prius and I don't pay a carbon tax on my electric bill and in same breath say well we can't expect other countries to cut back since they have not had their industrial revolution yet. Don't feed me that nonsense that Al Gore can fly around in his jet because he planted trees. Don't tell me China and India are exempt because they just don't want to do it but we can just cut back more. Tell me the truth we can't keep cutting down trees because your kids and grandkids won't be able to go camping, we need to clean up out water so your kids can still go fishing, we need to protect the environment so your kids can go hunting or vacation at the beach or by the lake. Don't make up phony catastrophic man made issues we can't control in the name of new taxes and kick backs to politician's who back "green" energy and get rich off it while they add corn to my gas to drive up the price of both gas and food and kill your engines faster

 

[billc]

The whitewash of climategate explained...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/

This two-part series addresses the conduct, conclusions and criticisms of four investigations into possible irregularities and misdeeds revealed in publicly exposed communications among prominent climate scientists. Part two, which will follow next week, discusses three of these investigations that took place in the United Kingdom.

the "Trick," explained...

Dr. Lindzen’s bewilderment is understandable. Concerning the Committee’s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or falsifying data) — characterizing the “trick” to “hide the decline” as legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology, ignored or misconstrued salient facts. While Mann’s own research methodology and results have indeed been challenged as fatally flawed, the actual trick should be examined within a broader context.
First, there is a widespread misconception that the reference to a decline refers to concealing an observed fall in global temperatures since a peak in 1998, the warmest year for some time. Instead, it really has to do with graphic trickery suggesting that man-made CO2 emissions over the past 40 years have produced a nearly vertical temperature escalation.


A 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well that’s when tree ring proxy data calculations by CRU’s Keith Briffa began going the other way in a steady decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. Briffa did, and the decline became even greater.
This presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum.” Emails reveal that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, was a “problem”, and posed a “potential distraction/detraction.” Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder.” So one aspect of Mike’s “trick” was reportedly to show all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a single graph, but simply cut off Briffa’s in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.

Yeah, that is simply a "math trick," :rofl:


and as to deleting information...

Regarding the second allegation, determining if Mann had directly or indirectly deleted or destroyed emails or other information, the findings were at least very lenient. When Phil Jones asked Mann to delete email records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. And while PSU investigators never chose to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann’s message and complied. Accordingly, it would appear that Mann was at least “indirectly” involved in deleting information when he passed along those instructions. And since there are no records to prove otherwise, everyone is asked to take Mann’s word that he didn’t do the same.

 

[billc]

More on climategate...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...g-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/

As if the first round of e-mails purloined from the U.K.’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) network weren’t damning enough, the new batch of about 5,000 more obtained through an anonymous source identified as “FOIA”are truly stunning. Many clearly confirm that top IPCC scientists consciously misrepresented and actively withheld important information…then attempted to prevent discovery. Included are CRU’s Director of Research, Phil Jones, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) climate’s analysis section head, Kevin Trenberth; and beleaguered Penn State University “hockey stick” originator, Michael Mann.

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today [November 22] make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center on Energy and Environment. “Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars.”

Phil Jones, who served as a lead author for one of the key chapters in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), leaves no doubt of intentions to keep embarrassing and conspiratorial disclosures under tight wraps:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.


​

Yeah, I guess people just "misinterpreted" what he meant with the idea to delete emails...

 

[billc]

The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...

they are telling us to shut down coal fired power plants, the ones that actually work like a charm, and to switch to poor quality, unreliable green energy, wind and solar...and if you live in a cold state...Illinois experienced it's coldest winter on record this year...then this could mean power outages in the middle of winter...not exactly just saying "take care of the planet."

During an interview with Thalia Assuras of Energy Now News last week, EPA chief Lisa Jackson was asked about the agency’s regulatory boom and the resulting mass retirements of coal-fired plants which provide the majority share of all U.S. electricity. First she correctly denied that the EPA requires shutting down any plants. Of course, she’s right…EPA only writes rules so stringent that they are no longer economic to operate.
Then Jackson went on to explain:

No, I can’t say what a business will decide to do. Some businesses are investing in nuclear, some are looking at natural gas. There are some states that are leading the way on solar and wind…What EPA’s role is to do is to level the playing field so that pollution costs are not exported to the population but rather companies have to look at the pollution potential of any fuel or any process or any plant or any utility when they’re making investment decisions.
​

So let’s be really sure we understand. The EPA’s latest new role is to “level the playing field”? And by “pollution”, we’re referring here to CO2…the basic nutrient all plants (and thereby all animals) depend upon to live?

all based on faulty science...

 

[K-man]

Yep the farther away from the Ice age we get the warmer we are and the faster ice melts so the higher the water rises. 7 inches over 100 years however is hardly alarming

Obviously you didn't read past the end of the first sentence. "If global warming emissions continue unabated, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century."

How will that affect things? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/w...-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0

Countries like Bangladesh will be hardest hit with millions displaced.

And even then, rising water levels are only a small part of the overall problem. Rising temperatures and changes in rainfall, cyclones etc. are potentially far more damaging. If we lose arable land there will be food shortages also.
:asian:

 

[billc]

Rising temperatures would mean longer growing seasons...more food, more people not dying from freezing temperatures, less use of fossil fuels for heating, that is what the greenies want isn't it, so the benefits actually outweigh the downside...but you won't here that from the greenies who want to use the earth warming and cooling naturally as an excuse to control the lives of other people...

 

[K-man]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/

Try 8:25 to find out more about John Coleman.
http://climatecrocks.com/tag/john-coleman/
If he was your star witness in a court case would you be confident of success? The guy is a fraud!

Coleman attacks with slides and statistics. But his narrative is distorted, riddled with holes, falsehoods and slivers of data that skew reality. These are the same errors he accuses climate scientists of making.


John Coleman is 75, a Rancho Bernardo resident who’s been the face of weather at KUSI since 1994. He was the first weathercaster on Good Morning America and co-founded The Weather Channel. He calls himself a blue-collar meteorologist. “I’m not a big damn scientist,” he says. His college major was journalism; his meteorology training came from a Penn State University correspondence course. He’s no longer accredited by the American Meteorological Society. Too much politics, he says.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2010/05/09/the-kusi-weathermans-cloudy-climate-claims/

"The point is not to be accurate or to speak the truth - the point is to confuse, to fog the issue."

If you want to debate the issue great, but at least use reputable scientists to back your claims. By quoting 'experts' like this guy, you lose credibility real fast.
:asian:

 

[billc]

and the whole Bangledesh thing...not so much...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution… nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can’t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now.

Larry, no, reality is a good deal more complex than that. First of all, the accelerated warming that was forecast to produce catastrophic sea level rise flooding Bangladesh and Pacific islands causing hundreds of millions of refugees to flee coastal regions hasn’t occurred. This isn’t to say either that the planet hasn’t been warming, or that sea levels haven’t risen. Of course they have, although these are hardly new developments. I can also make an argument that rising sea levels and warming periods may be somewhat disconnected matters.

Larry, it would be if it was all really that simple. However much depends upon other influences and the time scales involved. It’s one thing if warmer temperatures persist for millennia. In that case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting rate will increase, and so will the sea level increase rate. On the other hand, short term warming fluctuations lasting decades or less are a different matter.

Again, regarding temperature influences upon sea levels, consider, for example, what happened when the global climate sharply warmed between 1920 and 1940. Data shows that the sea level actually rose during that period, and then accelerated after temperatures cooled. How can this happen? One important clue is that a warming ocean evaporates more water, and a lot of it rains out in polar regions, transferring that water to the ice caps. This produces a net sea level lowering influence, counteracting the rising influences of glacier melts and ocean thermal expansion.

The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. That’s some range!
The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft…then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.
The good news here, if there really is any, is that each of the successive summary report maximum estimates decreased, all being much smaller than the 600 cm sea level rise trumpeted by former NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science activist James Hansen and climate multi-millionaire Gore.


A draft of the IPCC’s 5th report that was leaked to the press now projects a sea level rise by 2100 of 45-110 cm (16-40 inches) …about double of what they showed six years ago. What is particularly remarkable about this is that the report shows zero sea rise values before 1880, while the coral data and coastal sediments do.

 

[billc]

global warming would lower sea levels?

So Fred, what is the answer? If global warming actually lowers the sea level that some are so worried about, and we can help that along by burning more coal and other fossils, should we start doing so right away to save Venice residents and tourists from drowning?



No Larry. That’s really not my point here. I only wish to offer a modest appeal for the public and politicians to take note that better, more honest and objective science is needed, to be wary about motives and claims of U.N. climate treaty negotiators, and to understand that draconian regulatory limits upon energy use will not quell rising tides.