http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/ipcc

1. The IPCC reports conclude that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. This latest report from Working Group II confirms and reinforces the findings of the previous assessment report (AR4) published in 2007.

2. There is increased evidence that climate change is already affecting many natural and human systems and poses significant risks to human health, ecosystems, infrastructure, agricultural production and communities.

3. Key findings for Australia include:

– Marked decreases in agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin and south western and south eastern Australia could occur if projections of severe dry conditions are realised.

- There are significant future risks of increased loss of life, damage to property, and economic loss due to bushfires in southern Australia. Since 1950 hot extremes have become more frequent and intense, while cold extremes have become rarer. Increased hot weather is expected to hit major population centres, with hot days, for example, in Melbourne expected to increase by 20 to 40% by 2030, and by up to 190% by 2070.

– The iconic Great Barrier Reef is under threat. Under current rates of ocean warming and acidification, coral reef systems could be eliminated by mid- to late-century. If average global temperatures rise above 2°C it is expected that few coral-dominated systems will survive.

– There are risks from increased frequency and intensity of flooding from extreme rainfall events, causing damage to infrastructure.

4. Reducing the risk in Australia of water shortages, bushfire weather, extreme heatwaves, and decreased agricultural production will depend on how rapidly we are able to reduce carbon emissions locally and globally, and on the how effectively we are able to implement adaptation measures.

5. The IPCC is the most authoritative international body on climate change science and impacts. IPCC assessment reports are subject to an extremely rigorous review process.

Our team has summarised the findings of the latest IPCC report:

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/cd929c5cfed40f6d7c508dd6c1f930cf.pdf

IPCC Report
.
.
could occur

future risks

is expected

under threat

If

is expected There are risks from . . .

IPCC assessment reports are subject to an extremely rigorous review process.

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist
 Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times
One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.
.

.
.

.
.

The damage will continue

wookiemeister said:

The damage will continue

The IPCC reports are also highly conservative.

What are the faint grey lines under the blue ones?

buffy said:

What are the faint grey lines under the blue ones?

His brain function.

wookiemeister said:

The damage will continue

We might be lucky and Yellowstone will blow, leaving the world in a decade of cooling.

Doesn’t seem like very good news…

dv said:

Doesn’t seem like very good news…

The pdf is only 10 pages long.

:)

>>>His brain function.
>>>

perm: exactly how did you come to your negative conclusion
about me,
based on my input into this thread
??????
yes, lots of ?

The_observer said:

>>>His brain function.
>>>

perm: exactly how did you come to your negative conclusion
about me,
based on my input into this thread
??????
yes, lots of ?

You sir are a nutcase, you totally ignore the massive amount of science that states anthropogenic activity is responsible for global warming. You seem to think your conclusions outweigh almost the entire scientific community involved with climate activity. Apart from being a total nutter, what else can possibly be the matter with you?

>>>>You sir are a nutcase, you totally ignore the massive amount of science that states anthropogenic activity is responsible for global warming. You seem to think your conclusions outweigh almost the entire scientific community involved with climate activity. Apart from being a total nutter, what else can possibly be the matter with you?<<<

But,
But, you’re a fuckwit!, perm

PermeateFree said:

You sir are a nutcase, you totally ignore the massive amount of science that states anthropogenic activity is responsible for global warming. You seem to think your conclusions outweigh almost the entire scientific community involved with climate activity. Apart from being a total nutter, what else can possibly be the matter with you?

He’s not a nutcase, he’s just an extreme non-sceptic.

There’s a lot of that about, including people who are otherwise very intelligent.

Rev, you are a denier

The_observer said:

Rev, you are a denier

I’m happy to deny that you should be described as a nutter (especially by permeate).

And I’m happy to deny that people who like to call themselves “climate change sceptics” are in fact the least little bit sceptical about any data that fits their preconceptions.

So yes, in those respects I’m a denier.

>>>He’s not a nutcase,
he’s just an extreme non-sceptic.<<<

Do I agree that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere……………Yes

Do I agree that CO2 ia a greenhouse gas…………………………………..Yes

Do I agree that, in part, CO2 is responsible for or warming
our planet by about 30C more than if we had no greenhouse
gasses………………………………………………………………………………Yes
.
.
.comments?

The_observer said:

>>>He’s not a nutcase,
he’s just an extreme non-sceptic.<<<

Do I agree that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere……………Yes

Do I agree that CO2 ia a greenhouse gas…………………………………..Yes

Do I agree that, in part, CO2 is responsible for or warming
our planet by about 30C more than if we had no greenhouse
gasses………………………………………………………………………………Yes
.
.
.comments?

What sort of comments would you like on these random facts?

>>>What sort of comments would you like on these random facts?<<<

your explanation for how you judge me as an >>extreme non sceptic<<

thanks

http://theaimn.com/2014/04/04/you-probably-wont-read-this-its-about-climate-change/

>>Irreversible and severe damage is being inflicted on the planet from climate change. Science tells us we are responsible.<<

bullshit

.
Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener
Date:
May 31, 2013
Source:
American Geophysical Union
Summary:
Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

• your explanation for how you judge me as an >>extreme non sceptic<<

Because you rock the mike like a vandal?

>>Because you rock the mike like a vandal?<<

I have a mansion
Forget the price
Ain’t never been there
They tell me it’s nice

I live in hotels
Tear out the walls
I have accountants
Pay for it all

They say I’m crazy but I have a good time
I’m just looking for clues at the scene of the crime
Life’s been good to me so far

My Maserati
Does one eighty-five
I lost my license
Now I don’t drive

I have a limo
Ride in the back
I lock the doors
In case I’m attacked

I’m making records
My fans they can’t wait
They write me letters
Tell me I’m great

So I got me an office
Gold records on the wall
Just leave a message
Maybe I’ll call

Lucky I’m sane after all I’ve been through
(Everybody sing) I’m cool (He’s cool)
I can’t complain but sometimes I still do
Life’s been good to me so far

I go to parties
Sometimes until four
It’s hard to leave
When you can’t find the door

It’s tough to handle
This fortune and fame
Everybody’s so different
I haven’t changed

They say I’m lazy but it takes all my time
(Everybody sing) Oh yeah (Oh yeah)
I keep on going guess I’ll never know why
Life’s been good to me so far baby,
inside the Sad Cafe.<f font="">

Why dont you research how to observe things properly

>>Why dont you research how to observe things properly<<

I won’t be lectured by a pot smoking retard

;)

The_observer said:

>>Why dont you research how to observe things properly<<

I won’t be lectured by a pot smoking retard

;)

What? You’ve never been to uni?

Observation

One has to be careful of bias

>>>I won’t be lectured by a pot smoking retard

;)

What? You’ve never been to uni?<<<

lol

friday funny

10,000 people to research link between humans and Australia’s record heat

An international team of climate scientists is looking to recruit 10,000 members of the public to help find out the exact role greenhouse gases played in Australia’s record temperatures last year.

The Weather@home ANZ project will use people’s home computers to run a series of simulations based on the weather experienced in 2013, which has been confirmed as Australia’s hottest year on record.

more…

Climate damaging our coral reefs in WA

Climate scientists have painted a grim picture for WA’s reefs, with researchers revealing that a warming ocean and sea level rise is posing a threat to the state’s diverse coral reefs.

Researchers from the University of Western Australia, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), CSIRO and the University of San Diego say there is “clear evidence” that global warming and sea-level rise off WA were increasing the severity of extreme weather events and impacting the state’s coral reefs.

The team analysed the chemical composition of coral skeletons from the eastern Indian Ocean to reconstruct sea surface temperatures during the past 215 years – from 1795 to 2010.

more…

Scientists resign ‘living dead’ species to extinction, call for triage debate

The dramatic ongoing Scientists resign ‘living dead’ species to extinction, call for triage debateoss of Australian animal and plant species has prompted influential scientists to call on governments to start making tough decisions about which ones to save – and which species should be left to face extinction.

The proposal to triage Australia’s unique species comes from some of the nation’s most senior conservation biologists.

more…

Sustainable forest management and climate change

What would the 1980s have been without big hair, wine coolers and the discovery that the earth’s atmosphere had a hole in it over Antarctica. This blanket of ozone blocks most of the sun’s high-frequency ultraviolet rays. This discovery set the stage for the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

Today, the hole in the ozone is headed for a happy ending. Due to global mitigation measures, the hole is actually shrinking. Now however, some scientists say the environmental triumph of recovering the ozone layer could have a troubling side effect — boosting global warming, at least in the Antarctic region.

more…

UN climate change report card: Scientists predict Australia will continue to get hotter

The latest United Nations report card on the impacts of climate change predicts Australia will continue to get hotter.

The ABC has obtained drafts of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists believe the world is still on track to become more than 2 degrees Celsius warmer – and that potentially means whole ecosystems could be wiped out.

more…

>>>An international team of climate scientists is looking to recruit 10,000 members of the public to help find out the exact role greenhouse gases played in Australia’s record temperatures last year.<<<

The average temperature for December 2013 to March 2014 period in
Chicago was only 22.0°F, 10 degrees below freezing,
beating the old record set in the winter of 1903-04.
It even beat the harsh winters of 1977/78 which were some of the worst ever.

.GLOBAL

.
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

UN climate committee ‘optimistic’ on chances of managing climate change risks

The world’s leading climate science organisation has found no community or region anywhere in the world has avoided the impacts of climate change.

The latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned of serious threats to the planet’s ecosystems, infrastructure and agricultural production.

more…

Obama unveils plans to combat climate change

US President Barack Obama, who has vowed to make fighting global warming a focus of his remaining years in office, unveiled initiatives to mitigate what aides say are the effects of an already changing climate.

The proposals, spread throughout Obama’s 2015 budget blueprint to Congress, include an overhaul of the way the government pays for fighting wildfires, more money for satellites to track extreme weather and a $US1 billion ($1.1 billion) resiliency fund to help communities deal with heavier rainstorms, higher storm surges or more intense droughts.

“We are beginning to recognise that the climate is changing, despite the efforts we are taking to affect the trajectory,” Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, told reporters. “The president has great hope that the Congress will see the resiliency fund as having great impact on communities across the United States.”

more…

>>>The dramatic ongoing Scientists resign ‘living dead’ species to extinction, call for triage debateoss of Australian animal and plant species has prompted influential scientists to call on governments to start making tough decisions about which ones to save – and which species should be left to face extinction.
<<<<

IPCC admission from new report: ‘no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct’
Posted on March 28, 2014 by Anthony Watts
In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.

…

Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.

But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the IPCC’s new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama, Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further “increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century” is to be expected. On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.

Mid North Coast climate forecast to be hotter and wetter in the future

New research from the CSIRO and Bureau of Meterology (BOM) suggests the Mid North Coast needs to prepare for a warmer and potentially wetter future.

The latest ‘State of the Climate’ report, shows mainland Australia has warmed on average one degree since 1910.

more…

>>>The world’s leading climate science organisation has found
no community or region anywhere in the world has avoided the
impacts of climate change.
<<<

.

.

The IPCC report: busting the climate myths

The release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report provides details that stamp out the myths and distortions of those trying to discredit climate science. Has the Earth stopped warming over the past 15 years? The answer is an emphatic no, writes Will Steffen.

more…

The 2013 climate change wake-up call

Is an extreme heatwave enough for people to start taking the science of climate change seriously in Australia? Dr Paul Willis hopes so.

The hot weather that has besieged the nation since the beginning of the year and the associated bushfire threat has, I hope, been something of a cathartic experience for Australia. Finally an event that can be linked to climate change has been of such magnitude and impact that many people are now sitting up and taking notice.

more…

The rising oceans

Coastal societies must adapt to the reality of rising sea levels and more frequent coastal flooding, argues Dr John Church.

Today there are more than 140 million people and a trillion dollars in infrastructure in the first one metre above high tide level around the world.

Coastal areas (people, infrastructure and the environment) are already affected by extreme events such as coastal flooding and coastal erosion. For example, Hurricane Katrina caused over $100 billion of damage and the loss of over 1,000 lives along the USA Gulf coast and cyclone Nargis resulted in the loss of well over 100,000 lives in Burma.

more…

Heat rises in the search for temperature data truth

When it comes to climate change either you’re with us, or you’re on the other side. Well at least that’s how it appears at times. So what happens when someone from one camp says something that appears to support the other?

In the last few days, pro- and anti-climate change blogs have gone into overdrive over comments made at a US Congressional hearing into climate science.

more…

>>>The latest ‘State of the Climate’ report, shows mainland
Australia has warmed on average one degree since 1910.
<<<

what about the cause of the warming from 1910 to 1945?

The IPCC doesn’t blame that period of warming on humans, crazy

Time running out for Great Barrier Reef

Time is running out for Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef, with climate change set to wreck irreversible damage by 2030 unless immediate action is taken, marine scientists said yesterday.

In a report prepared for this month’s Earth Hour global climate change campaign, University of Queensland reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said the world heritage site was at a turning point.
“If we don’t increase our commitment to solve the burgeoning stress from local and global sources, the reef will disappear,” he wrote in the foreword to the report.

“This is not a hunch or alarmist rhetoric by green activists. It is the conclusion of the world’s most qualified coral reef experts.” Hoegh-Guldberg said scientific consensus was that hikes in carbon dioxide and the average global temperature were “almost certain to destroy the coral communities of the Great Barrier Reef for hundreds if not thousands of years”.

“It is highly unlikely that coral reefs will survive more than a two degree increase in average global temperature relative to pre-industrial levels,” he said.

more…

Climate Change May Put UNESCO World Heritage Sites Underwater

Tourists visiting the Statue of Liberty, Pompeii or Canada’s Old Town Lunenburg in coming centuries may need to bring a snorkel, thanks to climate change, a new study suggests.

If average global temperatures rise just three degrees above pre-industrial temperatures, melting glaciers and ice sheets will push up the sea level enough to inundate 136 sites considered by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to be cultural and historical treasures, sometime within the next 2,000 years, reports a new study published this week inEnvironmental Research Letters.

more…

Great Barrier Reef faced with irreversible damage

The Great Barrier Reef will be irreversibly damaged by climate change in just 16 years, according to leading reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

The reef has lost about half its coral coverage since the mid-1980s, with increased carbon dioxide concentrations contributing about 10 per cent alongside damage from other sources such as invasive species and farm nutrient run-off, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, a professor of marine science at the University of Queensland, said.

more…

China Calls on Rich Nations to Give $490 Billion for Climate (1)

China, the biggest country by population and carbon emissions, called on developed nations to provide $490 billion of climate funding to poorer countries through 2020 to help them adapt to droughts and floods.

From 2020, richer countries should give at least 1 percent a year of their gross domestic product to the Green Climate Fund based in Songdo, Korea, China said in a submission published today on the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They should give annual funding of $40 billion this year, rising to $100 billion in 2020, it said.

more…

Warming may sink 136 of 700 heritage sites

LONDON: Climate change is threatening the world’s cultural heritage with scientists estimating that 136 of 700 listed cultural monuments by Unesco will soon be under water.

A new study by Ben Marzeion from the University of Innsbruck and Anders Levermann from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said that from the Statue of Liberty in New York to the Tower of London and the Sydney Opera House — sea-level rise will not only affect settlement areas but also numerous world heritage sites listed by Unesco.

The monuments are in Unesco’s World Heritage List.

more…

2013 was hottest year on record in Australia, Bureau of Meteorology says

Australia has just sweltered through its hottest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

Average temperatures were 1.20 degrees Celsius above the long-term average of 21.8C, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C, the bureau said in its Annual Climate Statement.

All states and territories recorded above average temperatures in 2013, with Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia all breaking annual average temperature records.

And every month of 2013 had national average temperatures at least 0.5C above normal, according to the statement.

more…

>>>
The release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report provides details that stamp out the myths
and distortions of those trying to discredit climate science.
Has the Earth stopped warming over the past 15 years? The answer is an emphatic no, writes Will Steffen.
<<

he’s right. It’s more like 17 & a 1/2 years

Crazy;

in between smoking bongs, do you work in the renewable energy industry?

also, when you mull up, do you mix your marijuana with tobacco like the rest of ya hippy mates do?

>>>
From 2020, richer countries should give at least 1 percent a year of their gross domestic product to the Green Climate Fund based in Songdo, Korea, China said in a submission published today on the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They should give annual funding of $40 billion this year, rising to $100 billion in 2020, it said.
<<<

fuck me

25% Bumblebee Species in Europe at risk of Extinction

It has been revealed by a study that about 25% of Europe’s bumblebees are facing the risk of extinction because of loss of habitats and climate change. If bumblebees reach extinction then pollination of crops will come under threat and so as billions of dollars.

Intensive farming and climate change have been the major contributor for the plight of bumblebees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature warned on Wednesday that 24% of all 68 bumblebee species found in Europe are knocking on the door of extinction.

more…

UN climate warning goes unheeded: Hume

The news from the UN is bad: None of us, we’re told, not a single solitary one of us, will escape the consequences of climate change. Every individual, let alone nation, will be affected by the environmental crisis now unfolding around the planet.

We have heard this before, of course; still, the indifference that greeted the United Nations’ document was unnerving. Apparently, nobody cares or believes we are destroying the Earth. Perhaps we’re too overwhelmed to do anything about it. More likely we’re living in a collective state of denial. If you pretend everything’s fine; I will too.

more…

China needs that money to fund all the new coal mines its establishing to run
all the new coal fired power plants its building

>>>
Intensive farming and climate change have been the major contributor for the plight of bumblebees
<<<

what did the bumbles do back when the Earth’s temp was warmer than now crazy ?

Climate inaction catastrophic – US

The costs of inaction on climate change will be “catastrophic”, according to US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the impacts of global warming as “severe, pervasive and irreversible”.

He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the report says.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

more…

The_observer said:

>>>
From 2020, richer countries should give at least 1 percent a year of their gross domestic product to the Green Climate Fund based in Songdo, Korea, China said in a submission published today on the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They should give annual funding of $40 billion this year, rising to $100 billion in 2020, it said.
<<<

fuck me

The money would be better spent on contraception.
Ultimately 7 billion people must add to climate change simply by living in a civilised manner.

Climate report: Creating a sense of urgency or alarm?

The cool blue cover of the latest IPCC report on the impacts of climate change belies the rather hot stuff within.

Perhaps taking inspiration from their neon loving Japanese hosts, the report is heavy with reds, greens and yellows.

That is, until you get to the box detailing the human interference with the climate system. Here the IPCC outline “five integrative reasons for concern” summarising key risks across sectors and regions.

These include the risks faced by unique and threatened ecosystems, extreme weather, and the risk of large scale singular events.

more…

The_observer said:

China needs that money to fund all the new coal mines its establishing to run
all the new coal fired power plants its building

And every time you buy a Chinese made product you add to their pollution.

are you actually going to provide any evidence crazy?

or r u just going to continue to post your alarmist dribble?

>>> to their pollution
<<<

CO2 aint polution

Natural variation: Warm North Atlantic Ocean promotes extreme winters in U.S. and Europe

The extreme cold weather observed across Europe and the east coast of the U.S. in recent winters could be partly down to natural, long-term variations in sea surface temperatures, according to a new study. Researchers have shown that a phenomenon known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) — a natural pattern of variation in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures that switches between a positive and negative phase every 60-70 years — can affect an atmospheric circulation pattern, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), that influences the temperature and precipitation over the Northern Hemisphere in winter.

more…

Why Arctic ice is disappearing more rapidly than expected: River ice reveals new twist on Arctic melt

A new study led by Lance Lesack, a Simon Fraser University geographer and Faculty of Environment professor, has discovered unexpected climate-driven changes in the mighty Mackenzie River’s ice breakup. This discovery may help resolve the complex puzzle underlying why Arctic ice is disappearing more rapidly than expected.

Lesack is the lead author of “Local spring warming drives earlier river-ice breakup in a large Arctic delta.” Published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, the study has co-authors at Wilfrid Laurier University, the University of Alberta and Memorial University.

Its goal was to understand how warming global temperatures and the intensifying Arctic hydrological cycle associated with them may be driving increasing water discharges and more rapid ice breakup in the Arctic’s great rivers.

more…

Amazon studied to predict impact of climate change

Extreme weather events in the Amazon Basin are giving scientists an opportunity to predict the impacts of climate change and deforestation on ecological processes and ecosystem services of the Amazon River wetlands. “The research fills an important gap in our understanding of the vulnerability of tropical river-forest systems to changes in climate and land cover,” said the project’s leader.

more…

The_observer said:

>>> to their pollution
<<<

CO2 aint polution

Its atmospheric interaction with other effluent results in pollution.

Deforestation of sandy soils a greater climate threat

A new study finds that tree removal has far greater consequences for climate change in some soils than in others, a finding that could provide key insights into which ecosystems should be managed with extra care. In a comprehensive analysis of soil collected from 11 distinct U.S. regions, from Hawaii to northern Alaska, researchers found that the extent to which deforestation disturbs underground microbial communities that regulate the loss of carbon into the atmosphere depends almost exclusively on the texture of the soil.

more…

The_observer said:

>>>What sort of comments would you like on these random facts?<<<

your explanation for how you judge me as an >>extreme non sceptic<<

thanks

I’m afraid I don’t see your point. How can statements of agreement with almost universally accepted scientific theories possibly be seen as evidence of scepticism?

Voluntary climate action is a function of information and education

What is it that prompts citizens in Germany to do something about climate change on a voluntary basis? Of major significance here is a mixture of factual knowledge, subjective assumptions and hearsay. This is the result of an online field study involving 2,000 German citizens and conducted by environmental economists at Heidelberg University. In a research project at the Alfred Weber Institute for Economics, they inquired into the factors determining the so-called “willingness to pay” in connection with individual climate action.

more…

The_observer said:

are you actually going to provide any evidence crazy?

or r u just going to continue to post your alarmist dribble?

How about you?

How do we talk about climate change? The need for strategic conversations

With media bias polarising the conversation about climate change into ‘catastrophic’ and ‘sceptical’ camps, new research exposes just how important the ways in which environmental educators talk about climate change is in influencing public engagement.

more…

>>>
Its atmospheric interaction with other effluent results in pollution
<<<

CO2 aint air polution

Large gaps found in public understanding of climate change

Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why, according to a new national study.

Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why, according to a national study conducted by researchers at Yale University.

The report titled “Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change” found that only 57 percent know what the greenhouse effect is, only 45 percent of Americans understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface, and just 50 percent understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. Large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans cause global warming. Meanwhile, 75 percent of Americans have never heard of the related problems of ocean acidification or coral bleaching.

more…

<<<
I’m afraid I don’t see your point
>>>

I can’t help it if you’re stupid,

or if you’re just avoiding answering the question.

WIREs: A New Approach to Understanding Climate Change

Climate change is a phenomenon that extends far beyond science, with fundamental implications for economics, politics, sociology and environmental ethics. It is a phenomenon that changes how people understand the world around them and their own futures.

Climate change is a phenomenon that extends far beyond science, with fundamental implications for economics, politics, sociology and environmental ethics. It is a phenomenon that changes how people understand the world around them and their own futures. This understanding epitomises the multi-disciplinary approach of WIREs Climate Change, the latest interdisciplinary review project from Wiley-Blackwell.

Published in association with the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG), WIREs Climate Change brings together experts from across the climate change spectrum, including the social sciences as well as the physical and environmental sciences, to offer authoritative reviews, discussions and debates on every facet of climate change research.

more…

>>>
How about you?
<<as you="" are="" quite="" aware,="" I="" always="" post="" evidence="" to="" cover="" my="" point="" of="" view,="" as="" I="" have="" done="" on="" this="" thread.<br=""/>You continually ignore this

>>>
Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening
<<<

Oh, now I’m convinced

keep going CN i think tO is getting the shits.

>>>
keep going CN i think tO is getting the shits.
<<<

do you suck on the bong with crazy boris?

bong on

yep, definitely got ‘em.

The_observer said:

<<<
I’m afraid I don’t see your point
>>>

I can’t help it if you’re stupid,

or if you’re just avoiding answering the question.

Sinks to abuse as soon as you can’t answer a question.

Par for the course.

End of discussion.

>>>
yep, definitely got ‘em
<<<

LOL

>>>
Sinks to abuse as soon as you can’t answer a question.
<<<

How do you feel about PermeateFree calling Mr Ironic a fuckwit tha other day Rev?

Climate change to be revealed in unprecedented detail: Multi-billion pound satellite mission that changes the way we see the Earth takes flight

First of a new family of Esa satellites launches from French Guiana tonight
Known as Sentinel-1A, it is the first of six satellite groups
Using radar imagery, the satellite will observe our planet day and night
The radar images will allow scientists to detect changes in Earth’s climate
Sentinel family will also help emergency responses to floods and quakes
The high level of accuracy of the satellite will theoretically allow it to predict when buildings will collapse or detect emerging sinkholes

A groundbreaking satellite that changes the way we see the world has been launched.

Called Sentinel-1A, it launched from French Guiana at 21:02 GMT (15:02 EST) and soon after mission controllers confirmed they had made contact wiht the craft, to cheering in the control room.

It will be the first of a pair of satellites to launch into space, with the second – called Sentinel-1B – due to launch in 2015.

The pair is the first of the new Esa Sentinel family of satellites that will map our planet like never before.

more…

<<<
The radar images will allow scientists to detect changes in Earth’s climate
<<<

wow, it’s gunna be busy then

Is climate change about to wipe out the British cuppa? Assam tea is increasingly hard to grow as rainfall drops

Climate change has been blamed for many things – from melting ice caps to extreme storms – but it’s now threatening a British staple.

The Tocklai tea station has been recording daily weather and tea production data for more than a century and has found a rise in temperature, coupled with erratic rainfall, is damaging tea leaves globally.

For example, ambient temperatures in Assam, India have risen from 35°C to upwards of 50°C and after 48°C, tea leaves stop breathing and are destroyed.

more…

’No one will be untouched’: Climate change will lead to war, famine and extreme weather, claims IPCC report

No one will be untouched by climate change with storm surges, flooding and heatwaves among the key risks of global warming in the coming decades, claim scientists.

This was the warning made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II report.

The report said that violent conflicts, food shortages and serious infrastructure damage were also predicted to become more widespread over the coming years.

more…

>>>
For example, ambient temperatures in Assam, India have risen from 35°C to upwards of 50°C
<<<

jesus, you’d believe anything.

have you ever smoked tea leaves crazy?

I’ve known of some old hippies that substitute tea leaves for dope when supplies are rare.

Hows marijuana growing conditions going these days anyhow?

Do you know I think lot of the problems being forecast are really just those of overpopulation. I think someone mentioned it further back.

Let’s assume for a moment that there aren’t more tsunamis or earthquakes or swirly winds (of different names in different places). Even if you had the same number annually now as 100 years ago, they would affect a lot more people because there are a lot more people on the planet, and a lot more people in dangerous parts of the planet where these things happen. We really are just a profligate animal. And why should we expect the planet to stay static for our benefit? She don’t care about any of the things living on her.

.
Newsweek April 28 1975.

On the cooling world

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay just unearthed byzombietime .
In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich,warned of a coming ice age.

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.
“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.”
The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
—————————————————————————————————————————-

Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Another Ice Age?
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have…

fuck me

• keep going CN i think tO is getting the shits.

The link spamming is bound to give anyone the irrits regardless of subject…

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

owww, we better act

The link spamming is bound to give anyone the irrits regardless of subject…

well, yes. but that’s beside the point.

The_observer said:

Producing information of so many environmental problems was a very good try CrazyNeutrino and I commend you for it.

Unfortunately it had absolutely no affect on The_observer who like a Creationist is totally blind to the actual facts, preferring to live in the past with their ideology. I also think it went over the heads of a few others here too, but who really cares now? Lets face it we are far too late to being able to do something to mitigate global warming, with even now so little being done or planned. It is as if the threat of GW is thousands of years away and we can take our time in coming to terms with it. There seems to be so little appreciation that its rapid pace is going to impact strongly on many alive today, let alone their children and their grandchildren.

There has been criticism of me calling the likes of The_observer and others Fuckwits and Nutcases, whose ambition in life seems to be the reduction of action that might deflected or at least reduce the adverse effects of GW, but even now these nutcases are permitted to spread their crap with polite and reserved reflection. Just what would your attitude be to these people if instead, they were murderers and practised genocide? Would you be so condescending to them then? Because there is little difference between these people and what will eventuate in the foreseeable future.

From my perspective these GWD people deserve no respect, consideration or kindness. They are dangerous people who are condemning this world and all its inhabitants to a horrendous future.

Perm, you are a fuckwit.

The_observer said:

Perm, you are a fuckwit.

You are the big comedian here aren’t you Observer? If people only knew what a devious bastard you really are, if they would not find you quite so funny.

They are dangerous people who are condemning this world and all its inhabitants to a horrendous future.

=====================

How exactly?

I would have thought it was the generators of the alleged greenhouse effects that were to blame.

>>If people only knew what a devious bastard you really are, if they would not find you quite so funny.
<<<

who says anyone here finds me funny?

jjjust moi said:

They are dangerous people who are condemning this world and all its inhabitants to a horrendous future.

=====================

How exactly?

I would have thought it was the generators of the alleged greenhouse effects that were to blame.

What makes you think they are not involved and making good money they don’t want to relinquish?

The_observer said:

>>If people only knew what a devious bastard you really are, if they would not find you quite so funny.
<<<

who says anyone here finds me funny?

In a different guise they do.

were in a conspiracy Perm,

a conspiracy to destroy all the bumble bees in the world

>>>In a different guise they do.
>>>

Oh no, your not the fuckwit who thinks PWM & me are one in the same,

are you.

PWM will be pulling his hair out at that idea.

The_observer said:

were in a conspiracy Perm,

a conspiracy to destroy all the bumble bees in the world

Feral bees in Australia are like you, they displace natives species for your satisfaction.

The_observer said:

>>>In a different guise they do.
>>>

Oh no, your not the fuckwit who thinks PWM & me are one in the same,

are you.

PWM will be pulling his hair out at that idea.

Never said a thing.

<<<Feral bees="" in="" Australia="" are="" like="" you,="" they="" displace="" natives="" species="" for="" your="" satisfaction.<br=""/><<<

are you trying to be funny?

because I reckon there’s bound to be a few here laughing at you.

I am.

>>>Never said a thing.
<<<

what’s the other guise mean then

The_observer said:

<<<Feral bees="" in="" Australia="" are="" like="" you,="" they="" displace="" natives="" species="" for="" your="" satisfaction.<br=""/><<<

are you trying to be funny?

because I reckon there’s bound to be a few here laughing at you.

I am.

No I am not, but it does reflect your total ignorance and stupidity of the environmental problems of this country.

The_observer said:

>>>Never said a thing.
<<<

what’s the other guise mean then

:)))
Fuckwit.

you have sex with animals,

don’t you Perm

:))))))

The_observer said:

>>>Never said a thing.
<<<

what’s the other guise mean then

It was a typo. Should have been guys.

The_observer said:

you have sex with animals,

don’t you Perm

:))))))

Goes to show the deviant mind of yours Observer, no wonder you want to fuck-up the world.

Goes to show the deviant mind of yours Observer,
no wonder you want to fuck-up the world.
<<<<

Mmmwaaa, yes, starting with the bumble bees

pwm, worse that tim flannery.

The_observer said:

Goes to show the deviant mind of yours Observer,
no wonder you want to fuck-up the world.
<<<<

Mmmwaaa, yes, starting with the bumble bees

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer, especially of environmental matters and of course global warming. What do you do with yourself during the day? Are you completely blind, or just lock yourself away.

Boris said:

pwm, worse that tim flannery.

If he had his background, experience and education, we would not be here now.

You two should get a room.

Witty Rejoinder said:

You two should get a room.

Two go in, one comes out. Sounds good.

• Two go in, one comes out. Sounds good.

furious said:

• Two go in, one comes out. Sounds good.

Very good.

Looks like Observer has crawled back under his rock, so I’ll take this opportunity to get things done.

are you a tough guy Perm?

The_observer said:

are you a tough guy Perm?

No, just one with principles.

are you a tough guy Perm?

nah

I’ll bet you’re a paedophile.

The_observer said:

are you a tough guy Perm?

nah

I’ll bet you’re a paedophile.

Geez, you are really sinking low now Observer. Have you done time?

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low
Source: Human Events55_benefits_of_co2_pamphlet

By: David Archibald

The following has been excerpted from Twilight of Abundance:
Why Life in the 21st Century will be Nasty, Brutish, and Short by David Archibald:

The real threat is dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been in a glacial period for the last 3 million years, including some
sixty separate glacial advances and retreats. The current Holocene interglacial
period might last up to another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another
glaciation. Carbon dioxide is a gas highly soluble in water, and its solubility is
highly temperature dependent. The colder the planet is, the more carbon dioxide
the oceans absorb. During glaciations the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere
has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It needs to be stressed that plant
life shuts down at 150 parts per million, as plants are unable to operate with
the partial pressure differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the
atmosphere. Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level

was within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon dioxide.
The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when
the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration. For plant life,
the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels

And unfortunately, the carbon dioxide that human beings are pumping into the

atmosphere will not be there for very long. There is fifty times as much carbon
dioxide held by the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. As the deep oceans
turn over, on an eight-hundred-year cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon
dioxide now in the atmosphere down into Davy Jones’s Locker, where it will be
of no use to man, beast, or plant life. Agricultural productivity will rise for the
next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, after
which it will fall away. By the year 3000 AD, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide
level will be only a couple of percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
Life above sea level will therefore remain dangerously pre- carious because of
the low carbon dioxide level.

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-carbon-dioxide-level-is-dangerously-low

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html

“The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere

I’ve an important announcement to make. I have just spent the past few days looking of what may well be the worst climate paper yet produced. You heard that right – the absolute worst. This paper is so poor it makes Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) look like Einstein’s special theory of relativity in comparison.

So anyway, I decided to go all Climate Audit on this paper partly to get a handle on the solar influence on climate that denialists are always on about (there is actually some decent literature on solar forcing, though obviously this paper isn’t part of that), and partly because it is so shockingly bad it’s humorous in the way troma movies are.

Firstly, some background. In a rather silly post from NZ denialist Vincent Grey over at Jen Marohasy, a fellow by the name of David Archibald popped up, spouted the usual shill crap, and the directed readers to his relatively recently published paper in Energy & Environment.

You asked for solar – climate papers. Look no further than my own effort:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
Now, Lavoisier is a crazed denialist group based in Australia so the fact that the article was reprinted there didn’t bode well.

Archibald goes on to claim his paper is peer-reviewed. Ian Castles informs me that E&E really does have a peer-review process and he has, in fact, reviewed papers for them himself.

But in this case, I’m not so sure. Actually, that’s a bit of an understatement.

So, what is so wrong with Archibald, D.C. (2006) Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response?

…. Continued”

Archibald is a winner of this event:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2013/04/the-2013-iowahawk-earth-week-cruise-in.html

apparently.

Clearly a very interesting chap.

The_observer said:

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low
Source: Human Events55_benefits_of_co2_pamphlet

By: David Archibald

The following has been excerpted from Twilight of Abundance:
Why Life in the 21st Century will be Nasty, Brutish, and Short by David Archibald:

The real threat is dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been in a glacial period for the last 3 million years, including some
sixty separate glacial advances and retreats. The current Holocene interglacial
period might last up to another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another
glaciation. Carbon dioxide is a gas highly soluble in water, and its solubility is
highly temperature dependent. The colder the planet is, the more carbon dioxide
the oceans absorb. During glaciations the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere
has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It needs to be stressed that plant
life shuts down at 150 parts per million, as plants are unable to operate with
the partial pressure differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the
atmosphere. Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level

was within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon dioxide.
The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when
the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration. For plant life,
the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels

And unfortunately, the carbon dioxide that human beings are pumping into the

atmosphere will not be there for very long. There is fifty times as much carbon
dioxide held by the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. As the deep oceans
turn over, on an eight-hundred-year cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon
dioxide now in the atmosphere down into Davy Jones’s Locker, where it will be
of no use to man, beast, or plant life. Agricultural productivity will rise for the
next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, after
which it will fall away. By the year 3000 AD, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide
level will be only a couple of percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
Life above sea level will therefore remain dangerously pre- carious because of
the low carbon dioxide level.

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-carbon-dioxide-level-is-dangerously-low

Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels so animals that need shells cannot make them? Of course not, because you are a fuckwit.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low
Source: Human Events55_benefits_of_co2_pamphlet

By: David Archibald

The following has been excerpted from Twilight of Abundance:
Why Life in the 21st Century will be Nasty, Brutish, and Short by David Archibald:

The real threat is dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been in a glacial period for the last 3 million years, including some
sixty separate glacial advances and retreats. The current Holocene interglacial
period might last up to another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another
glaciation. Carbon dioxide is a gas highly soluble in water, and its solubility is
highly temperature dependent. The colder the planet is, the more carbon dioxide
the oceans absorb. During glaciations the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere
has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It needs to be stressed that plant
life shuts down at 150 parts per million, as plants are unable to operate with
the partial pressure differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the
atmosphere. Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level

was within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon dioxide.
The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when
the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration. For plant life,
the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels

And unfortunately, the carbon dioxide that human beings are pumping into the

atmosphere will not be there for very long. There is fifty times as much carbon
dioxide held by the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. As the deep oceans
turn over, on an eight-hundred-year cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon
dioxide now in the atmosphere down into Davy Jones’s Locker, where it will be
of no use to man, beast, or plant life. Agricultural productivity will rise for the
next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, after
which it will fall away. By the year 3000 AD, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide
level will be only a couple of percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
Life above sea level will therefore remain dangerously pre- carious because of
the low carbon dioxide level.

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-carbon-dioxide-level-is-dangerously-low

Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels so animals that need shells cannot make them? Of course not, because you are a fuckwit.

All the animals that need shells?

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

.
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low
Source: Human Events55_benefits_of_co2_pamphlet

By: David Archibald

The following has been excerpted from Twilight of Abundance:
Why Life in the 21st Century will be Nasty, Brutish, and Short by David Archibald:

The real threat is dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been in a glacial period for the last 3 million years, including some
sixty separate glacial advances and retreats. The current Holocene interglacial
period might last up to another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another
glaciation. Carbon dioxide is a gas highly soluble in water, and its solubility is
highly temperature dependent. The colder the planet is, the more carbon dioxide
the oceans absorb. During glaciations the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere
has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It needs to be stressed that plant
life shuts down at 150 parts per million, as plants are unable to operate with
the partial pressure differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the
atmosphere. Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level

was within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon dioxide.
The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when
the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration. For plant life,
the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels

And unfortunately, the carbon dioxide that human beings are pumping into the

atmosphere will not be there for very long. There is fifty times as much carbon
dioxide held by the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. As the deep oceans
turn over, on an eight-hundred-year cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon
dioxide now in the atmosphere down into Davy Jones’s Locker, where it will be
of no use to man, beast, or plant life. Agricultural productivity will rise for the
next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, after
which it will fall away. By the year 3000 AD, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide
level will be only a couple of percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
Life above sea level will therefore remain dangerously pre- carious because of
the low carbon dioxide level.

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-carbon-dioxide-level-is-dangerously-low

Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels so animals that need shells cannot make them? Of course not, because you are a fuckwit.

All the animals that need shells?

If they can’t make shell from Calcium carbonate , then yes.

When looking at the graph, it would appear that low CO2 and low temperatures are the exception rather than the rule.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels so animals that need shells cannot make them? Of course not, because you are a fuckwit.

All the animals that need shells?

If they can’t make shell from Calcium carbonate , then yes.

There are lots of creatures that make shells containing calcium carbonate. There will be winners and losers.

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/OceanAcid_68964.pdf

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

All the animals that need shells?

If they can’t make shell from Calcium carbonate , then yes.

There are lots of creatures that make shells containing calcium carbonate. There will be winners and losers.

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/OceanAcid_68964.pdf

Not many winners and making an extra thick exoskeleton on a creature that must move around and able the shed it in order to grow, are very likely not to be a winner in the long run. So to say there will be winners and losers when organisms from coral reefs to plankton, all shell fish and countless others, as against a few arthropods that can make thicker shells that they don’t need, is a very long bow to draw.

>>Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels so animals that need shells cannot make them?

Dealing with ocean acidification could well be a much more difficult problem to ameliorate than adjusting the thermostat of the earth which could be done with some fairly straightforward engineering solutions.

Ian said:

>>Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels so animals that need shells cannot make them?

Dealing with ocean acidification could well be a much more difficult problem to ameliorate than adjusting the thermostat of the earth which could be done with some fairly straightforward engineering solutions.

In the long-term I don’t think there is going to be a great deal of difference, because once we reach a certain level (and we might be there already), natural events as a result of anthropogenic activity will become beyond our control, one of which is the melting of the permafrost. We should have acted long ago to reduce our CO2 emissions, but did not and it still looks like we are not going to bite the bullet.

PermeateFree said:

In the long-term I don’t think there is going to be a great deal of difference, because once we reach a certain level (and we might be there already), natural events as a result of anthropogenic activity will become beyond our control, one of which is the melting of the permafrost. We should have acted long ago to reduce our CO2 emissions, but did not and it still looks like we are not going to bite the bullet.

If “we” all reduced our CO2 emission by 100%, starting right now, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.

As long as the Chinese and Indians are going to go on building carbon-fired power stations at the rate they are, and burning everything they can get their hands on, to power their quests for a Mercedes-Benz S-class saloon, the results are beyond our control.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

In the long-term I don’t think there is going to be a great deal of difference, because once we reach a certain level (and we might be there already), natural events as a result of anthropogenic activity will become beyond our control, one of which is the melting of the permafrost. We should have acted long ago to reduce our CO2 emissions, but did not and it still looks like we are not going to bite the bullet.

If “we” all reduced our CO2 emission by 100%, starting right now, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.

As long as the Chinese and Indians are going to go on building carbon-fired power stations at the rate they are, and burning everything they can get their hands on, to power their quests for a Mercedes-Benz S-class saloon, the results are beyond our control.

Who is selling them all this coal anyway?

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

In the long-term I don’t think there is going to be a great deal of difference, because once we reach a certain level (and we might be there already), natural events as a result of anthropogenic activity will become beyond our control, one of which is the melting of the permafrost. We should have acted long ago to reduce our CO2 emissions, but did not and it still looks like we are not going to bite the bullet.

If “we” all reduced our CO2 emission by 100%, starting right now, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.

As long as the Chinese and Indians are going to go on building carbon-fired power stations at the rate they are, and burning everything they can get their hands on, to power their quests for a Mercedes-Benz S-class saloon, the results are beyond our control.

It could also be that if the Chinese and Indians did stop producing CO2 tomorrow, it may even be too late. It is difficult to determine the situation as we are right on the tipping point edge and to go on blindly doing what we have always done, is going to have a sad ending.

PermeateFree said:

It could also be that if the Chinese and Indians did stop producing CO2 tomorrow, it may even be too late. It is difficult to determine the situation as we are right on the tipping point edge and to go on blindly doing what we have always done, is going to have a sad ending.

Concur.

morrie said:

Who is selling them all this coal anyway?

Us, of course.

I suppose we could just stop selling it to them, and then see what their reaction may be to that.

captain_spalding said:

morrie said:

Who is selling them all this coal anyway?

Us, of course.

I suppose we could just stop selling it to them, and then see what their reaction may be to that.

I think we would have the greater problem from the Fossil Fuel Lobby.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

morrie said:

Who is selling them all this coal anyway?

Us, of course.

I suppose we could just stop selling it to them, and then see what their reaction may be to that.

I think we would have the greater problem from the Fossil Fuel Lobby.

‘Fossil Fuel Lobby’. A nice euphemism for the PLA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Major_export_markets_for_Australian_coal

looks like china and india burn very little of our coal for power.

JudgeMental said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Major_export_markets_for_Australian_coal

looks like china and india burn very little of our coal for power.

>>Exports

slide

header

Black coal is Australia’s second-highest export commodity and Australia is the world’s leading coal exporter.

Over the past 10 years black coal exports have increased by more than 50%.

Japan takes 39.3% of Australia’s black coal exports – the largest share, with a total of 115.3 million tonnes exported last financial year.

China is our second largest market with 42.4 million tonnes in 2009-2010, almost double the previous year.<<

http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.html

Being interesting to see the current figures. Bet they are even more.

i was just pointing out that our coal is mainly used for coking in india and china. so best not to blame power generation solely as seemed to be the trend.

JudgeMental said:

i was just pointing out that our coal is mainly used for coking in india and china. so best not to blame power generation solely as seemed to be the trend.

Did someone do that?

yes.

JudgeMental said:

yes.

Don’t recall, who was it?

it isn’t that far back in the thread. don’t people actually absorb what is posted? i haven’t really followed this thread, just read bits and pieces yet i seem to know whats going on. read back about a dozen posts.

JudgeMental said:

it isn’t that far back in the thread. don’t people actually absorb what is posted? i haven’t really followed this thread, just read bits and pieces yet i seem to know whats going on. read back about a dozen posts.

Fair enough, but I suppose the CO2 all ends up in the same place.

also china seems to recognise there is a problem and is trying to do something about it.

http://www.chinafaqs.org/issue/coal-electricity

JudgeMental said:

also china seems to recognise there is a problem and is trying to do something about it.

http://www.chinafaqs.org/issue/coal-electricity

Yes they are doing a great deal more than us. But there again, everyone is doing more than us.

But there again, everyone is doing more than us.

seems that way.

JudgeMental said:

But there again, everyone is doing more than us.

seems that way.

We have an old fashioned British Prime Minister from the 50s

>>>>
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 514448
Subject: re: IPCC Report and the Good News

“The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html

So Rev, who is this ‘green Scientist’ blogger you have copied & pasted that dares to critique
anyone without giving personal details of his/her own credentials?

lives in ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA.

Uses terms such as “denialists – spouted the usual shill crap – a crazed denialist group”

Gives no name (other than green scientist)

Rev, you wanka

>>>Have you ever looked at the way the oceans are going due to an excess of CO2, especially lowering the pH levels
so animals that need shells cannot make them?

Of course not, because you are a fuckwit.
<<<

Good morning paedophile Permate.

IPCC: Summary for Policymakers

The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic, with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units . However, the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine
biosphere are as yet undocumented.

Claims of dangerous anthropogenic ocean acidification are extremely exaggerated.
pH (the power of hydrogen) of the oceans naturally varies from location to location in a range from 7.9 to 8.3 (7.0 being neutral & 6.9 being acid). The oceans are alkaline.
Papers can only suggest the claimed 0.1 reduction in alkalinity is due specifically to human co2 emissions. Since ocean pH naturally varies from 7.9 to 8.3 the claimed 0.1 decrease (which has only been detected in small specific localities) could be due to a great diversity of reasons. .

Claims that coral & shell building organisms will be affected are proved invalid by recent studies & by geological history.
Co2 absorbed by sea water produces the weak acid called carbonic acid which inturn dissociates into carbonates & bicarbonates. The proportions of these chemicals continually seek equilibrium both preventing ocean pH falling below 7.9 & rising above 8.3.
pH – A pH of 7.0 is ten times less alkaline then a pH of 8.0. A pH of 6.0 is a hundred times more acid than a pH of 8.0. As demonstrated a continuing reduction of acidity needs an exponential increase in acid.

It is simply impossible for the oceans to turn acid. The oceans are awash with calcium. Calcium & carbonic acid combine to form carbonates which are used to form shells, coral reefs & limestone. The calcium in the ocean is due to weathering. Rain is naturally acid & it weathers rocks releasing calcium which flows into the oceans.
At 15 degrees C at the surface, 1 lt of sea water can absorb an equal amount of co2. This absorption increases vastly as water temperature decreases &/or pressure increases. For example;- At 10 degree C it absorbs 19% more than its own volume & at 15 degrees C at a depth of 10 meters it absorbs twice its own volume. The Earth surface is 71 % ocean. The average overall depth is 3800 meters & average temp is 3.9 degrees C.

The total mass of the ocean is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons
The total mass of the atmosphere is…… 5,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons
Co2 makes up .038% of the atmosphere & only 3.207% is attributed to human emissions.

The Ocean Acidification Fiction
Volume 12, Number 22: 3 June 2009

There is considerable current concern that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a significant drop in the pH of the world’s oceans in response to their absorption of a large fraction of each year’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the resulting harm to calcifying marine life such as corals. But just how valid are these claims?

Whenever the results of theoretical calculations are proposed as the basis for a crisis of some kind or other, it is always good to compare their predictions against what is known about the phenomenon in the real world. In the case of oceanic pH, for example, Liu et al. (2009) write in an important new paper that “the history of ocean pH variation during the current interglacial (Holocene) remains largely unknown,” and that it “would provide critical insights on the possible impact of acidification on marine ecosystems.” Hence, they set about to provide just such a context.

Working with eighteen samples of fossil and modern Porites corals recovered from the South China Sea, the nine researchers employed 14C dating using the liquid scintillation counting method, along with positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry to generate high precision δ11B (boron) data, from which they reconstructed the paleo-pH record of the past 7000 years that is depicted in the figure below.

Reconstructed pH history of the South China Sea. Created from Table 1 of Liu et al. (2009).
As can be seen from this figure, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record. Hence, there is no compelling reason to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air’s CO2 concentration that has occurred to date over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As for the prior portion of the record, Liu et al. note that there is also “no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration record from Antarctica ice cores and δ11B-reconstructed paleo-pH over the mid-late Holocene up to the Industrial Revolution.”

Earlier work of Pelejero et al. (2005), who developed a more refined history of seawater pH spanning the period 1708-1988 (depicted in the figure below), based on δ11B data obtained from a massive Porites coral from Flinders Reef in the western Coral Sea of the southwestern Pacific. These researchers also found that “there is no notable trend toward lower δ11B values.” Instead, they discovered that “the dominant feature of the coral δ11B record is a clear interdecadal oscillation of pH, with δ11B values ranging between 23 and 25 per mil (7.9 and 8.2 pH units),” which they say “is synchronous with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.”

Going one step further, Pelejero et al. also compared their results with coral extension and calcification rates obtained by Lough and Barnes (1997) over the same 1708-1988 time period; and as best we can determine from their graphical representations of these two coral growth parameters, extension rates over the last 50 years of this period were about 12% greater than they were over the first 50 years, while calcification rates were approximately 13% greater over the last 50 years.

The so-called observer busy showing what a good little non-skeptic he is again I see, and responding with name calling to anyone who dares to debate his cherry-picked data.

>>>
The so-called observer busy showing what a good little non-skeptic he is again I see, and responding with name calling to anyone who dares to debate his cherry-picked data.
<<<
here’s the Rev, that desperate to discredit a climate realist
that he would copy & paste shit like that of the anonymous “Green Scientist”.

And on the name calling, besides ignoring the foulness of Perms name calling, being the usual hypocrite YOU ARE REV,
you constantly partake yourself

The_observer said:

>>>
The so-called observer busy showing what a good little non-skeptic he is again I see, and responding with name calling to anyone who dares to debate his cherry-picked data.
<<<
here’s the Rev, that desperate to discredit a climate realist
that he would copy & paste shit like that of the anonymous “Green Scientist”.

And on the name calling, besides ignoring the foulness of Perms name calling, being the usual hypocrite YOU ARE REV,
you constantly partake yourself

Permeate is on the very short list of people I don’t bother responding to or commenting about.
You are now back on the list as well, so you may like to dangle your bait elsewhere.

Have a nice day :)

>>>>
Permeate is on the very short list of people I don’t bother responding to or commenting about.
You are now back on the list as well, so you may like to dangle your bait elsewhere.
<<<

Oooowwwwww, a list!

I’m more than glad I’m on your list Rev.

I don’t have a list

Science keeps proving climate change is real

CLIMATE change is already happening, is irreversible and will have consequences for coastal communities like the Sunshine Coast.

That’s the stark message from University of the Sunshine Coast scientists working on national and global projects to uncover strategies to help local councils respond to the storm surge, flooding and droughts that are now inevitable.

The Federal Government will further fund, with $9 million over three years, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility comprising of eight universities including USC.

Director of USC’s Sustainability Research Centre Professor Tim Smith said yesterday that Monday’s release of the latest Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report had made clear that even if emissions were stopped now, the globe would be living with the consequences of a changing climate for decades.

more…

>>>
CLIMATE change is already happening
<<<

IPCC says it hasn’t the evidence to back up any claims that emissions of CO2 have caused increases in extreme weather, cyclones, etc.

they have no evidence to support the theory that the warming from the 1970s to the late 1990s was caused by emissions of CO2.

No warming for 17 years & 7 months according to RSS sat data.

Models all show to much warming.

Tropospheric water vapour content has not increased

Lapse rate feedback positive not negative -

Mid tropospheric rate of warming during warming period slower, not faster,
than the rate of warming at the surface.

Why

The atmosphere just isn’t as sensitive to increases of atmospheric CO2, at present levels,
as the believers, the alarmists, & the extremists want everyone else to believe.

Unambitious Australia needs to do more to tackle climate change

Australia plays an important role as a leading economy within the international community, and host of this year’s summit of the G20 countries.

How it tackles the threat of climate change is of global importance as developing countries look to rich countries to set an example because of their better technologies and history of high emissions of greenhouse gases.

Australia’s current policy settings and institutions hold out prospects for doing its fair share in a global effort that has to increase over time. Repeal of these policies would be a setback for the Australian and international effort.

I hope that Western Australians will be mindful of their contribution to a global effort when they choose between candidates in Saturday’s Senate election.

Other countries are making big efforts.

more…

Climate change: Race against time that no-one wants to win

When Dan Arvizu joined the New York commission formed in the wake of hurricane Sandy, the energy expert studied recommendations made after a destructive storm a decade earlier – all of which had been ignored. The 2012 storm caused $US65 billion ($70 billion) in damage, much of it from a surge of seawater that inundated large parts of Manhattan.

Just as in the prior disaster, building owners located back-up power units in basements, their least valuable space but also the most vulnerable to flooding.

For lessons to sink in, “you don’t need one disaster, you need two”, Arvizu, director of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said this week in Sydney.

Such lessons are likely to be useful in the future. New York can expect the intensity of future storms to increase, as greenhouse gases trap ever more heat in the atmosphere.

more…

Climate change will impact everything everywhere

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: There’s time left to act, but not much. That’s the assessment from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The latest report says a warming world is already wreaking havoc on infrastructure and agriculture and endangering many animal species.

And for the first time, scientists are urging governments to invest millions to adapt to the changing world.

Here’s the ABC’s environment reporter Jake Sturmer.

JAKE STURMER, REPORTER: Seven years of work from hundreds of the world’s most respected scientists, but one simple conclusion:

RAJENDRA PACHAURI, IPCC CHAIR: Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change.

more…

Climate change intensifies risk of conflict, migration: IPCC report

Expert reaction on IPCC report: Costs of climate change mounting Comment: IPCC reports consensus on emerging climate change risks

The report released by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday announced that the impacts of climate change are already widespread.

IPCC chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri said the stability of human social structures could be at risk if no action was taken on the report’s finding.

“We have reasons to believe that if the world doesn’t do anything to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases, the very social stability of human systems could be at stake,” he said.

Speaking at a press conference in Japan on Monday, Dr Pachauri said climate change was found to lead to displacement and increased conflicts, as well as presenting risk to areas such as low lying coastal areas.

“There are negative impacts on crop yields… and this has serious implications for food security,” he said.

“This would really be a severe challenge for some of the poorest communities and poorest regions in the world.”

Mr Jarraud said there was potential for disaster amid extreme weather events.

“We know all the ingredients are there for a new food crisis to come,” he said.

“You just need a few extreme .”

more…

Climate Change optimism after Cartagena Dialogue in Majuro

The Cartagena Dialogue climate talks have wrapped up in Majuro, with optimism that world leaders will work together towards new climate objectives in lieu of the UN Climate Summit in New York this September.
Climate Change optimism after Cartagena Dialogue in Majuro (Credit: ABC)

Holding talks in a place like Marshall Islands allows delegates to see for themselves the damaging effects of rising sea levels.

Editor of the Marshall Islands Journal Giff Johnson says this in-person contact has been key to changing attitudes to climate change

more…

Our Year of Extremes: Did Climate Change Just Hit Home?

The dazzling icescape at the top of our planet is mutating into a place that is barely recognizable to those who have studied it for years.

The Arctic is home to some of the world’s most dramatic climate change, scientists say, with warming oceans and air melting ice at a rate experts never imagined possible. The warming there has drastic implications for the rest of the earth, scientists say.

“The Arctic is a very useful bellwether of change, and it’s ringing,” Jason Box, an American glaciologist, told NBC News’ Ann Curry. Curry traveled to far corners of the globe for “Ann Curry Reports: Our Year of Extremes – Did Climate Change Just Hit Home?” which airs Sunday at 7 p.m. ET.

more…

Climate change is here and the world is taking a turn for the worse

Irreversible and severe damage is to be inflicted on the planet from climate change. Feel like you’ve read that before?

For decades the world’s credible scientific institutions have been warning of the threats climate change poses to almost all facets of life on this planet. The latest assessment by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is another full account of the problems we will cause with our continued tampering with the earth’s climate by releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases.

I know, this does feel familiar doesn’t it? You are a little bored, I can sense your eyes glazing over. But bear with us, there are a few important things to take in – there is after all a lot at stake.

more…

Univision Partners with U.N. to Push Climate Change Agenda

Walter Cronkite once said, “In seeking truth you have to get both sides of the story.” Well, if that’s the case, then our country’s biggest Spanish-language network has no interest in providing Hispanics in the United States—this nation’s fastest-growing and youngest demographic—with the truth on the issue of climate change.

According to a press release from Univision Communications—which controls multiple Univision Web, radio, and television properties—the biggest Spanish-language media company is partnering with the United Nations Foundation to increase “awareness about climate change and…its effects and innovative solutions in combating the problem.”

Issac Lee, president of the news division of Univision Communications, describes the partnership this way:

more…

Climate change: documenting the blindingly obvious

If you want to go on eating regularly in a rapidly warming world, live in a place that’s either high in latitude or high in altitude. Alternatively, be rich, because the rich never starve. But otherwise, prepare to be hungry.

That’s the real message of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPOC) report on the impact of warming on human beings released last week: The main impact is on the food supply. Of course, everybody who was paying attention has already known that for years, including the scientists. It’s just that scientists are professionally cautious, and will not say anything that they cannot prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.

An ordinary person will look out the back window and say that it’s raining. A scientist will feel obliged to look out the front window and make sure that it’s raining on the other side of the house, too. Cats do the same, although they are not scientists.

more…

World Running Out Of Time To Stop Global Warming, UN Report Says

OSLO, April 6 (Reuters) – World powers are running out of time to slash their use of high-polluting fossil fuels and stay below agreed limits on global warming, a draft U.N. study to be approved this week shows.

Government officials and top climate scientists will meet in Berlin from April 7-12 to review the 29-page draft that also estimates the needed shift to low-carbon energies would cost between two and six percent of world output by 2050.

It says nations will have to impose drastic curbs on their still rising greenhouse gas emissions to keep a promise made by almost 200 countries in 2010 to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times.

Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 C (1.4F) since 1900 and are set to breach the 2 C ceiling on current trends in coming decades, U.N. reports show.

“The window is shutting very rapidly on the 2 degrees target,” said Johan Rockstrom, head of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and an expert on risks to the planet from heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising seas.

more…

You’re very impressionable, aren’t you Crazy.

I doubt your cutting & pasting marathon is having much effect,

on anyone.

I hope you’re not doing it on my behalf Crazy?

Window closing on world’s ability to meet global warming targets: UN study

World powers are running out of time to slash their use of high-polluting fossil fuels and stay below agreed limits on global warming, a draft UN study to be approved this week shows.

Government officials and top climate scientists will meet in Berlin from April 7-12 to review the 29-page draft that also estimates the needed shift to low-carbon energies would cost between two and six per cent of world output by 2050.

more…

Global warming and the current New Mexico drought

Given the prominence and “culture wars” significance of greenhouse warming, there’s been a natural and unfortunate tendency in discussions of our current drought to alternately blame or try to not blame human-caused climate change for New Mexico’s enduring drought. On some of the local water management mailing lists, the discussions can seem tediously endless.

My general explanation of the science in my stories and columns (see here for the most recent) is that the primary cause of the drought is large-scale ocean patterns that happen naturally, tending to push the storm track toward us or away from us. Right now, “away from us” dominates. On top of that natural variability, warming temperatures driven by greenhouse gases are likely making natural droughts worse.

Two of the scientists I have relied on extensively for this, Marty Hoerling at NOAA and Richard Seager at Columbia University, have a new paper laying out that argument explicitly:

more…

Responding to Global Warming

Economist William D. Nordhaus, The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World, 2013, argues (e.g., on p. 169) that there are four possible approaches to coping with the global warming problem:

Reduce the rate of economic growth by reducing living standards. Change our lifestyle by cutting back on those activities that involve the use of fossil fuels (e.g., reducing one’s travel by airplane). Continue producing and transporting (goods and people) at the same level, but do so with low- or no-carbon technologies. Continue burning fossil fuels, but remove the CO2 after combustion—i.e., engage in geo-engineering measures.

Should these proposals be given serious attention? If so, by whom? In answering these questions, the starting point is to ask: What facts of relevance regarding global warming do we need to recognize before we start making proposals? I would suggest the following as key facts (or projections that are reasonable to regard as “factual”):

The consensus with climate scientists is that if the global mean increased by 2° C (the baseline here being the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, i.e., around 1750 CE), the negative feedback mechanism that have been “working” to “hold back” change will, in a sense, “give up,” to be replaced with positive feedback mechanisms—whose function will be to accelerate change. Some climate scientists—James Hansen perhaps being the most notable among this group—believe that even a 2° C “target” of increase, in the global mean temperature, is too high. The “climate commitment” value is believed to be somewhere between 1° C and 1.5° C That is, if the emission of “greenhouse gases” were to cease, on a world-wide basis, today, those gases would not suddenly disappear. Their presence would continue in the atmosphere, and therefore continue to have an effect on the global mean temperature. True, the magnitude of that presence would decline over time, but while present those gases would cause the global mean to increase by at least a degree (to 1.8° C), and as much as 1.5° C (to 2.3° C).

more…

Thomas Friedman On Conservatives Questioning Global Warming: ‘That’s Not Conservatism, That’s Trotskyite Radicalism’

“New York Times” columnist Thomas Friedman took a nasty swipe at conservatives over the subject of climate change on Sunday April 6. Friedman appeared alongside Heidi Cullen of Climate Central on Sunday’s CBS This Morning and proceeded to mock conservatives who question human-caused climate change.

Speaking to host Bob Schieffer, Friedman claimed that 97 percent of scientists believe in climate change and “conservatives are saying I’m going go to with the 3%. That’s not conservative, that’s Trotskyite radicalism.”

more…

Global warming calls for timely action

The latest draft assessment report of the UN-mandated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — its fifth — is more forthcoming than ever on the “observed impacts, vulnerability and exposure” to global warming, particularly in the Indian subcontinent and beyond. It calls for sustained, proactive policy to manage the myriad adverse consequences of a warming planet — albeit in the tiny decimal points — which include more frequent extreme weather events, rising water scarcity, pollution and other ill-effects. It urges adaptation and mitigation measures to reduce the threat to the climate system.

Weather patterns are complex systems in which a tiny change in one parameter, say, average temperature, can mean large, unforeseen outcomes. The report reiterates that observed global warming from 1850-1900 to 1986-2005 is 0.61° C, and slated to rise. It calls upon governments, corporates and civil society to step up preparedness and early-warning systems for extreme weather events like flash floods and severe cyclones. In tandem, what’s outlined is purposeful water management to cope with reduced precipitation and river flows.

more…

‘We’re All Sitting Ducks’: Latest U.N. Global Warming Report Paints Dark Picture

YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) — Global warming is driving humanity toward a whole new level of many risks, a United Nations scientific panel reports, warning that the wild climate ride has only just begun.

Twenty-first century disasters such as killer heat waves in Europe, wildfires in the United States, droughts in Australia and deadly flooding in Mozambique, Thailand and Pakistan highlight how vulnerable humanity is to extreme weather, says a massive new report from a Nobel Prize-winning group of scientists released early Monday. The dangers are going to worsen as the climate changes even more, the report’s authors say, adding that no one is immune.

“We’re all sitting ducks,” Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer, one of the main authors of the 32-volume report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in an interview.

more…

Global warming

The IPCC report on global warming, followed almost immediately by widespread concern over air pollution (your report, 4 April), illustrates just one conundrum of climate control.

Smog, being particulate in nature, reflects sunlight and so to some extent counteracts the greenhouse effect. If we could magically overnight cease to use fossil fuel the smogs would rapidly disappear – and since the greenhouse gas concentrations would be unaffected, the immediate consequence would be an increase in global warming! Hopefully this would be only a small step to a then-stable state, but that small step might actually alter things so much (plant life on land and sea has a huge effect on climate) as to induce further undesirable consequences; and so on.

Can we really presume ourselves so clever as to be able to control the earth’s climate to suit our own ends ?

more…

These 5 Foods Will Be Harder to Grow in a Warmer World

The reality of climate change has already hit farms, ranches, and orchards around the globe, according to the latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While some crops will grow better in a warmer world, the report found that the negative impacts—including widespread crop damage, smaller harvests, and higher food costs—far outweigh any upsides.

The report predicts that yields of major food crops like corn, wheat, and rice are likely to start decreasing by 2030 and will continue to decline by up to 2 percent a decade.

No particular crops are likely to disappear any time soon, says David Wolfe, professor of horticulture at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and committee member of Cornell’s Institute for Climate Change and Agriculture. Still, he predicts that farmers of the near future will likely have to take increasingly drastic and expensive measures to cope with epic droughts, summer heat, rogue frosts, and ever-changing growing seasons. “If it was as simple as gradual warming, farmers could plant around it,” he says. “But as this global experiment has been playing out, farmers are seeing things they’ve never seen before.”

more…

Sobering IPCC Report: “Warming is Unequivocal”

Climate change is now affecting every continent and ocean says the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international collaboration of more than 2,500 experts. If we don’t act soon to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control, the problems will only grow substantially worse. This isn’t a casual statement from a few fringe scientists: nearly 500 people had to sign off on the exact wording of the summary, including 66 expert authors, 271 officials from 115 countries, and 57 observers.

The report is the second of three installments of the IPCC’s fifth assessment of climate change. The first installment, released last year, covered the physical science of climate change. It stated with certainty that climate change is very real and that we are the cause. The new report focuses on the impacts of climate change and how to adapt to them. The third installment, which will come out in April, will focus on cutting greenhouse emissions.

more…

Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

Increasing uncertainty in the climate system compels a greater urgency for climate change mitigation, according to new research. Scientists have shown that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change. Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. The authors highlight this with the case of future sea level, as larger uncertainty in sea level rise requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.

more…

Second Climate Thoughts

The U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its latest mammoth report last week, and the effort marks an improvement over the IPCC’s last such effort in 2007. That may not be saying much, but on climate change intellectual progress of any sort is worth commending.

The IPCC’s “Fifth Assessment Report,” or AR5, is generating the usual alarmist headlines: “Impacts on All Continents, Worse to Come” was typical. That’s partly a function of what the IPCC frontloads into the 28-page “summary for policymakers,” the only portion of the report that most politicians or journalists ever bother reading, and that is sexed up for mass media consumption.

So it’s worth diving deeper into the report, where a much more cautious picture of the state of climate science comes into view. Gone are some of the false alarmist claims from the last report, such as the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 or that hurricanes are becoming more intense. “Current data sets,” the report admits, “indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” Recall the false claims of climate cause and storm effect last year after Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines.

more…

Climate change scientists must turn their attention to clean skies, experts urge

Natural aerosols, such as emissions from volcanoes or plants, may contribute more uncertainty than previously thought to estimates of how the climate might respond to greenhouse gas emissions.

An international team of researchers, led by the University of Leeds, has shown that the effect of aerosols on the climate since industrialisation depends strongly on what the atmosphere was like before pollution — when aerosols were produced only from natural emissions. The research will be published in the journal Nature on 7 November.

Professor Ken Carslaw, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds and lead author of the study, said: “We have shown that our poor knowledge of aerosols prior to the industrial revolution dominates the uncertainty in how aerosols have affected clouds and climate.

“In order to better understand climate change, we need to turn our attention towards understanding very clean regions of the atmosphere — as might have existed in the mid-1700s. Such regions are incredibly rare now, but we are looking for them.”

more…

Drought and climate change: an uncertain future?

Drought frequency may increase by more than 20% in some regions of the globe by the end of the 21st century, but it is difficult to be more precise as we don’t know yet how changes in climate will impact on the world’s rivers.

The results come from a study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which examined computer simulations from an ensemble of state of the art global hydrological models driven by the latest projections from five global climate models used for the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The research was led by Dr Christel Prudhomme from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology working with colleagues from the UK, USA, the Netherlands, Germany and Japan.

more…

FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

****

20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006

****

21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

****

22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

****

23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

****

24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

****

25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

****

26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

****

27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

****

28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum . In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

****

29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

****

30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

****

31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

****

32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

****

33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

****

34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

****

35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

****

36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

****

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

****

38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

****

39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

*****

40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

****

41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007

****

44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

****

45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

****

46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

****

47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

****

48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

****

49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

****

50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

****

51. “The data collected by experts from the university suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004

****

52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

****

53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

****

54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

****

55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

****

56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

****

57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008

****

58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
Guardian, 14 February 2004

****

59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

****

60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
Spiegel, 3 June 2006

****

61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.

“The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”

****

62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 August 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/26/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

****

63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

****

64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
Telegraph December 14, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536852/The-hottest-year-since-1659-spells-global-doom.html

****

65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
BBCs Climate Change Experiment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml

****

66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:
http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf
Impacts of climate change in Belgium
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

****

68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

****

69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

****

70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
February 14, 2004
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland

****

71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/03/research.sciencenews

****

72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/british-seasons-start-to-shift-6358532.html

****

73. “The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars…. you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

****

74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

****

75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”

****

76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

****

77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”

****

78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”

****

79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

****

80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

****

81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

****

82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

****

83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

****

84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

****

85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

****

86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

****

87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

—****

88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

****

89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”

****

90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

****

91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

****

92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

****

93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

****

94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

****

95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

****

96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

****

97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

****

98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

****

99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

****

100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

****

101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”

****

102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

****

103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

****

104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”

****

105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

****

106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

****

107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.”

About these ads

Father of the ‘Gaia hypothesis’ James Lovelock:

environmentalism has become a religion

Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures

Environmentalism has “become a religion” and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock.

The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that “it’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer” and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms.

Speaking to the Guardian for an interview ahead of a landmark UN climate science report on Monday on the impacts of climate change, Lovelock said of the warnings of climate catastrophe in his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia: “I was a little too certain in that book. You just can’t tell what’s going to happen.”

…

Lovelock’s comments appear to be at odds with dire forecasts from a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday, which leaked versions show will warn that even small temperature rises will bring “abrupt and irreversible changes” to natural systems, including Arctic sea ice and coral reefs.

Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”

.

Soon the pause will be longer than the last two warming periods

CN…the stream of links is too prolific. Are any of them peer reviewed published papers? The ones I have clicked on recently have been journalism. This forum is, underneath, still science based. I think we might be able to manage to read scientific papers and not need the information filtered through a journalist.

Here, like this list of journals:

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/climate/journals/

buffy said:

Here, like this list of journals:

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/climate/journals/

ok

buffy said:

CN…the stream of links is too prolific. Are any of them peer reviewed published papers? The ones I have clicked on recently have been journalism. This forum is, underneath, still science based. I think we might be able to manage to read scientific papers and not need the information filtered through a journalist.

buffy, did you bother to look at ‘The Tipping Point’ on channel 34 that I brought to your attention last night , where some of the climate scientists who actually do the scientific work on global warming were interviewed and their work methods shown? Or were you too busy watching repeats of crappy programs on the ABC?

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

CN…the stream of links is too prolific. Are any of them peer reviewed published papers? The ones I have clicked on recently have been journalism. This forum is, underneath, still science based. I think we might be able to manage to read scientific papers and not need the information filtered through a journalist.

buffy, did you bother to look at ‘The Tipping Point’ on channel 34 that I brought to your attention last night , where some of the climate scientists who actually do the scientific work on global warming were interviewed and their work methods shown? Or were you too busy watching repeats of crappy programs on the ABC?

I read some ophthalmological journals.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

CN…the stream of links is too prolific. Are any of them peer reviewed published papers? The ones I have clicked on recently have been journalism. This forum is, underneath, still science based. I think we might be able to manage to read scientific papers and not need the information filtered through a journalist.

buffy, did you bother to look at ‘The Tipping Point’ on channel 34 that I brought to your attention last night , where some of the climate scientists who actually do the scientific work on global warming were interviewed and their work methods shown? Or were you too busy watching repeats of crappy programs on the ABC?

I read some ophthalmological journals.

Same old then.

That was about the oil sands? I’ve done some reading about that. I actually much prefer reading stuff to documentaries these days. I find most documentaries, from whichever side they are coming, are very shallow in content.

Looks like there are two documentaries. The Tipping Points is a series. The Tipping Point – End of Oil seems to be a one off.

buffy said:

That was about the oil sands? I’ve done some reading about that. I actually much prefer reading stuff to documentaries these days. I find most documentaries, from whichever side they are coming, are very shallow in content.

It was not about oil sands at all, but about the melting permafrosts and the release of CO2 and methane. As for documentaries with direct interviews with the scientists doing the work, I am surprised you would regard them as shallow, but there again they probably don’t watch crap on the tele.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

That was about the oil sands? I’ve done some reading about that. I actually much prefer reading stuff to documentaries these days. I find most documentaries, from whichever side they are coming, are very shallow in content.

It was not about oil sands at all, but about the melting permafrosts and the release of CO2 and methane. As for documentaries with direct interviews with the scientists doing the work, I am surprised you would regard them as shallow, but there again they probably don’t watch crap on the tele.

Geez you’re rude

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

That was about the oil sands? I’ve done some reading about that. I actually much prefer reading stuff to documentaries these days. I find most documentaries, from whichever side they are coming, are very shallow in content.

It was not about oil sands at all, but about the melting permafrosts and the release of CO2 and methane. As for documentaries with direct interviews with the scientists doing the work, I am surprised you would regard them as shallow, but there again they probably don’t watch crap on the tele.

Geez you’re rude

No not rude, just countering hypocrisy.

I have problems with extremists of either colour. I do not think this world was made with particular conditions for humans – I don’t believe in a god. I see no particular reason to think it should stay stable at the correct temperature etc for any particular animal that has evolved on it. That includes us. We are a very recent animal and it is quite possible for our time to be limited. We probably fit into quite a small window. The dinosaurs lasted a lot longer than we have so far. We are delicate and need very defined conditions to survive. Over the planet-time, not much of it has been conducive to our survival. And it won’t stay the way we need it, even if we minimize our impact. Internal changes in terms of earthquakes and volcanos etc and external ones in the form of impacts from space are completely outside our control. I accept that we are just one of the experiments. I don’t think we are especially special from the point of view of the lifecycle of this planet. Just one of the things that has happened.

I also have a great deal of trouble with timescales. It is difficult, but I like to think I can stretch my imagination to thousands of years, and sometimes I can get an inkling of millions of years. Even understanding that here in South West Victoria there was an Ice Age a mere 10,000 years ago is a bit mind boggling. So even a couple of hundred years of temperature measurements, with instrumentation that has been changing, particularly rapidly in the past 50 years, and with relocation of weather stations as cities have grown becomes difficult to fit into the long term view as it is such a small amount of time.

buffy said:

I have problems with extremists of either colour. I do not think this world was made with particular conditions for humans – I don’t believe in a god. I see no particular reason to think it should stay stable at the correct temperature etc for any particular animal that has evolved on it. That includes us. We are a very recent animal and it is quite possible for our time to be limited. We probably fit into quite a small window. The dinosaurs lasted a lot longer than we have so far. We are delicate and need very defined conditions to survive. Over the planet-time, not much of it has been conducive to our survival. And it won’t stay the way we need it, even if we minimize our impact. Internal changes in terms of earthquakes and volcanos etc and external ones in the form of impacts from space are completely outside our control. I accept that we are just one of the experiments. I don’t think we are especially special from the point of view of the lifecycle of this planet. Just one of the things that has happened.

I also have a great deal of trouble with timescales. It is difficult, but I like to think I can stretch my imagination to thousands of years, and sometimes I can get an inkling of millions of years. Even understanding that here in South West Victoria there was an Ice Age a mere 10,000 years ago is a bit mind boggling. So even a couple of hundred years of temperature measurements, with instrumentation that has been changing, particularly rapidly in the past 50 years, and with relocation of weather stations as cities have grown becomes difficult to fit into the long term view as it is such a small amount of time.

Things are now changing very fast and probably quicker than any time in history. This is initially brought about by anthropogenic activity, but because of these initial factors, they lead into and simulate events based on past carbon sequestration, which in turn speeds global warming even faster. These events like the melting of the permafrost are currently not factored into global warming models, yet if fully released will far exceed what we have done. It is this aspect of global warming that was featured on last nights “The Tipping Point” and why it was so important to see and so gain a better appreciation of what is happening on this planet.

>>Things are now changing very fast and probably quicker than any time in history.<<

Or not. Which history? What time scale? Temperature fluctuations are not nice even flowing lines over thousands of years. They are lots of little spiky bits with some sort of general direction. And the general direction seems to be usually evident over quite a lot more than the couple of hundred years we have readings for.

I totally understand that humans are pillaging. But that is what organisms do. So in the end it is going to come down to evolving to stay top dog. If we opt for stasis, we will die out. And trying to stop changes in climate is like trying to stop the tide coming in.

buffy said:

>>Things are now changing very fast and probably quicker than any time in history.<<

Or not. Which history? What time scale? Temperature fluctuations are not nice even flowing lines over thousands of years. They are lots of little spiky bits with some sort of general direction. And the general direction seems to be usually evident over quite a lot more than the couple of hundred years we have readings for.

I totally understand that humans are pillaging. But that is what organisms do. So in the end it is going to come down to evolving to stay top dog. If we opt for stasis, we will die out. And trying to stop changes in climate is like trying to stop the tide coming in.

Try telling that to king Canute

buffy said:

>>Things are now changing very fast and probably quicker than any time in history.<<

Or not. Which history? What time scale? Temperature fluctuations are not nice even flowing lines over thousands of years. They are lots of little spiky bits with some sort of general direction. And the general direction seems to be usually evident over quite a lot more than the couple of hundred years we have readings for.

I totally understand that humans are pillaging. But that is what organisms do. So in the end it is going to come down to evolving to stay top dog. If we opt for stasis, we will die out. And trying to stop changes in climate is like trying to stop the tide coming in.

I think you need to watch a few decent global warming docos, plus spend a little time on evolution and scientific investigation into GW, as your understanding is atrocious.

PF and Teh_observah are the only ones with understandingness of teh issues.

Try telling that to king Canute

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”. This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

wiki cnut.

poikilotherm said:

PF and Teh_observah are the only ones with understandingness of teh issues.

Apart from hazy ideas, there are few here that do or even care about global warming and its implications. As a self-proclaimed scientific community you should have a more critical look at yourselves.

JudgeMental said:

Try telling that to king Canute

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”. This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

wiki cnut.

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

party_pants said:

JudgeMental said:

Try telling that to king Canute

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”. This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

wiki cnut.

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

Must have been Sir Rupert of Murdoch and his band of knaves.

party_pants said:

JudgeMental said:

Try telling that to king Canute

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”. This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

wiki cnut.

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

>>Around 900 cnut

Christ was born around 900 bcnut

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Around 900 cnut

Christ was born around 900 bcnut

900AD. Alfred the Great’s time.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

JudgeMental said:

Try telling that to king Canute

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”. This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

wiki cnut.

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

So Superman is really Clark C*nt?

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

JudgeMental said:

Try telling that to king Canute

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”. This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

wiki cnut.

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

Or as one ABC news reader said:-

“And the Chief Kenstable of Cun——
I’m sorry I’ll say that again,
“The Constable of Kent—-

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

Or as one ABC news reader said:-

“And the Chief Kenstable of Cun——
I’m sorry I’ll say that again,
“The Constable of Kent—-

Goes well with Jimmy Dibble’s (I think) “Yesterday a woman was bitten on the funnel by a fingerweb spider”

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Yeah, he did it as an act of humility to show he wasn’t all powerful, not as a statement of vanity. Talk about bad press.

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

Or as one ABC news reader said:-

“And the Chief Kenstable of Cun——
I’m sorry I’ll say that again,
“The Constable of Kent—-

Sorry, should have read,

The Chief Constable of Kent.

Tamb said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

Or as one ABC news reader said:-

“And the Chief Kenstable of Cun——
I’m sorry I’ll say that again,
“The Constable of Kent—-

Goes well with Jimmy Dibble’s (I think) “Yesterday a woman was bitten on the funnel by a fingerweb spider”

That origonally was stated by a news reader in Sydney before WW 11, and he got fired for it.

Tamb said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

Bit of trivia. Around 900 cnut was Saxon for Kent.

Or as one ABC news reader said:-

“And the Chief Kenstable of Cun——
I’m sorry I’ll say that again,
“The Constable of Kent—-

Goes well with Jimmy Dibble’s (I think) “Yesterday a woman was bitten on the funnel by a fingerweb spider”

John Chance I think.

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Or as one ABC news reader said:-

“And the Chief Kenstable of Cun——
I’m sorry I’ll say that again,
“The Constable of Kent—-

Goes well with Jimmy Dibble’s (I think) “Yesterday a woman was bitten on the funnel by a fingerweb spider”

That origonally was stated by a news reader in Sydney before WW 11, and he got fired for it.

Just shows how urban myths originate.

>>I think you need to watch a few decent global warming docos, plus spend a little time on evolution and scientific investigation into GW, as your understanding is atrocious.<<

Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers. I requested CN to link to papers rather than opinion and journalistic pieces earlier today, specifically because, as you point out, we are supposed to have a science background here. I’m not interested in watching docos. I’d much rather read some papers where I can see the method and stuff. Or, things in Science where there are references that I can follow up. I’m not brilliant at statistics, but I like to at least run an eye over the method.

buffy said:

Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers.

http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/Australian-content/definition-of-documentary-television-i-acma

The Australian Content Standard defines documentary as ‘a program that is a creative treatment of actuality other than a news, current affairs, sports coverage, magazine, infotainment or light entertainment program’.

Divine Angel said:

buffy said:

Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers.

http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/Australian-content/definition-of-documentary-television-i-acma

The Australian Content Standard defines documentary as ‘a program that is a creative treatment of actuality other than a news, current affairs, sports coverage, magazine, infotainment or light entertainment program’.

I prefer mocumentaries

buffy said:

>>I think you need to watch a few decent global warming docos, plus spend a little time on evolution and scientific investigation into GW, as your understanding is atrocious.<<

Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers. I requested CN to link to papers rather than opinion and journalistic pieces earlier today, specifically because, as you point out, we are supposed to have a science background here. I’m not interested in watching docos. I’d much rather read some papers where I can see the method and stuff. Or, things in Science where there are references that I can follow up. I’m not brilliant at statistics, but I like to at least run an eye over the method.

Well it might surprise you buffy, but some docos and specifically the one I mentioned had not only the scientists, but also the methods they used to reach their conclusions. It was not like a David Attenborough doco, although there is nothing wrong with them if you want to know about some established facts. I find your attitude concerning documentaries astonishing and can only assume you have seen only one poorly made one, but decided then that none were worth watching.

No, I simply want more depth than even 10 minutes of talking head can give. And you rarely get more than 10 minutes of any one scientist. I want to be able to sit down and read the information. Peruse the graphs – of which I gather there are many.
Read the conclusions of that particular scientist or group of scientists.

buffy said:

No, I simply want more depth than even 10 minutes of talking head can give. And you rarely get more than 10 minutes of any one scientist. I want to be able to sit down and read the information. Peruse the graphs – of which I gather there are many.
Read the conclusions of that particular scientist or group of scientists.

Well you obviously have never had the opportunity of reading papers on global warming or evolution. Guess they are not your thing.

>> I find your attitude concerning documentaries astonishing and can only assume you have seen only one poorly made one, but decided then that none were worth watching.<<

Documentaries are fine as an introduction to a subject. But I got my intro to this subject back in the 1970s when I was a voracious reader of Scientific American. I’m older, I’ve read a lot more scientific papers, albeit mostly in medical fields. And I’ve seen this subject change direction quite a few times over the years.

buffy said:

>> I find your attitude concerning documentaries astonishing and can only assume you have seen only one poorly made one, but decided then that none were worth watching.<<

Documentaries are fine as an introduction to a subject. But I got my intro to this subject back in the 1970s when I was a voracious reader of Scientific American. I’m older, I’ve read a lot more scientific papers, albeit mostly in medical fields. And I’ve seen this subject change direction quite a few times over the years.

I can assure you that research into global warming has advanced a great deal over the last 40 years and perhaps you should watch a few documentaries as an introduction.

Yes, some good, biased opinion pieces from specific individuals would work wonders for your understanding buffy.

And in fact, there was talk of snowball earth back then.

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html

If anyone is interested. I am aware that that theory was killed off.

And I have continued to read. I stand by my analysis that a documentary is necessarily shallow.

poikilotherm said:

Yes, some good, biased opinion pieces from specific individuals would work wonders for your understanding buffy.

No they are interviewing scientists who actually do the work, not some armchair expert who hasn’t been anywhere or done anything, but read an odd paper on something remotely connected to GW.

buffy said:

And in fact, there was talk of snowball earth back then.

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html

If anyone is interested. I am aware that that theory was killed off.

And I have continued to read. I stand by my analysis that a documentary is necessarily shallow.

You take The_observer too seriously buffy, no doubt you are also an avid reader of Andrew Bolt too.

I’m not entirely sure why you would think Andrew Bolt would be my pinup. That really makes no sense whatsoever.

buffy said:

I’m not entirely sure why you would think Andrew Bolt would be my pinup. That really makes no sense whatsoever.

You seem to have a similar amount of knowledge on the subject. Really your Snowball Earth theory is straight out of the mouth of PMW. Is he coaching you now and perhaps I’m getting his and Bolt’s comments mixed up with you.

Divine Angel said:

buffy said:

Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers.

http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/Australian-content/definition-of-documentary-television-i-acma

The Australian Content Standard defines documentary as ‘a program that is a creative treatment of actuality other than a news, current affairs, sports coverage, magazine, infotainment or light entertainment program’.

Wow.

I sort of guessed that about documentaries, but didn’t realise documentary was defined that way.

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

buffy said:

Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers.

http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/Australian-content/definition-of-documentary-television-i-acma

The Australian Content Standard defines documentary as ‘a program that is a creative treatment of actuality other than a news, current affairs, sports coverage, magazine, infotainment or light entertainment program’.

Wow.

I sort of guessed that about documentaries, but didn’t realise documentary was defined that way.

It’s really quite a loose definition, and only relatively recently revised. As DO pointed out, under this definition, one could argue Underbelly was a documentary…

Divine Angel said:

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/Australian-content/definition-of-documentary-television-i-acma

The Australian Content Standard defines documentary as ‘a program that is a creative treatment of actuality other than a news, current affairs, sports coverage, magazine, infotainment or light entertainment program’.

Wow.

I sort of guessed that about documentaries, but didn’t realise documentary was defined that way.

It’s really quite a loose definition, and only relatively recently revised. As DO pointed out, under this definition, one could argue Underbelly was a documentary…

“Loose” is too weak, really.

“creative treatment of actuality”. Yep, Underbelly ticks the box, easily.

Now, this is what I am after:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453296a.html

I can’t actually read the paper because you have to pay for it, and I can’t find a copy for free online. It may be there somewhere. But the summary at that link points out the good and bad about doing a meta analysis. I want to read stuff that is aware of its own shortcomings and points them out.

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

Michael V said:

Wow.

I sort of guessed that about documentaries, but didn’t realise documentary was defined that way.

It’s really quite a loose definition, and only relatively recently revised. As DO pointed out, under this definition, one could argue Underbelly was a documentary…

“Loose” is too weak, really.

“creative treatment of actuality”. Yep, Underbelly ticks the box, easily.

In the same link the paragraph immediately below, clearly states that a documentary must be factual.

buffy said:

Now, this is what I am after:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453296a.html

I can’t actually read the paper because you have to pay for it, and I can’t find a copy for free online. It may be there somewhere. But the summary at that link points out the good and bad about doing a meta analysis. I want to read stuff that is aware of its own shortcomings and points them out.

I have the paper, care of uni library. Copyright says I can’t post the whole thing, so here’s a bit from the Conclusions.

The issues of other climate and non-climate driving forces are important. In considering other drivers of change for phenology, much of the evidence in plants comes from changes observed in the spring. Even though day length can have a modulating effect on spring phenology depending on the plant species, it is not a factor in these studies because species remain in situ for the length of the time series, during which day length has not changed. There is also the possibility that increasing CO2 is directly influencing plant phenology; however, experimental results show no consistent direction of response (that is, an advance or delay)32. Concerning trees, older trees tend to unfold leaves in spring later than younger ones, so with longer time series on one specific object, the onset dates should become later with time owing to ageing, not earlier as observed owing to warming. Finally, some of the plant data, especially in Europe, come from phenological gardens that have been protected from the direct effects of land-use change for decades.

Land-use change, management practices, pollution and human demography shifts are all-along with climate-drivers of environmental change. Explicit consideration of these factors in observedchange studies strengthens the robustness of the conclusions. To determine the role of other driving forces in the data series used in this analysis, we assessed the likelihood of their having a direct effect on the observed system (see Supplementary Table 1). Out of the ~29,500 data series documented in ~80 studies included in the database, effects documented in only 3 studies (9 data series in 4 cells) were likely to have been caused by a driving force other than climate change (for example, habitat destruction, pollution or fishery by-catch disposal). Removing these data series from the statistical analyses does not change the results significantly.

METHODS SUMMARY

We developed a database of observed changes in natural systems from peerreviewed papers, demonstrating a statistically significant trend in change in either direction related to temperature and containing data for at least 20 years between 1970 and 2004. Observations in the studies were characterized as a ‘change consistent with warming’ or a ‘change not consistent with warming’. The databases of the observed significant changes in the natural systems were overlaid with two gridded observed temperature data sets and the spatial patterns of the observed system changes were compared with the observed temperature trends using two different pattern-comparison measures.

Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of the paper at www.nature.com/nature.

buffy said:

Now, this is what I am after:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453296a.html

I can’t actually read the paper because you have to pay for it, and I can’t find a copy for free online. It may be there somewhere. But the summary at that link points out the good and bad about doing a meta analysis. I want to read stuff that is aware of its own shortcomings and points them out.

You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of scientists involved with global warming support anthropogenic contribution.
Also global warming and the reasons for it are not conjecture, but fact and also accepted by the scientific community.
Any conflict concerns relate to the extent and when things are going to happen. So although you state you want more details, you ignore and also refute global warming itself. You remind me of a couple people about to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff, but arguing with each other as to where they should land.

Michael V said:

“Loose” is too weak, really.

“creative treatment of actuality”. Yep, Underbelly ticks the box, easily.

It goes on to define what each of the sub categories are, and give examples of each. I’m not sure how their quorum of industry people and financiers ended up with that definition when there are much better ones out there.

>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of scientists involved with global warming support anthropogenic contribution.<<

And there is the other thing that does get my back up. A good scientist is never, ever certain that they are right. You put up a hypothesis. And then you do your best to shoot it down. Otherwise you are far too likely to apply confirmation bias. And I have not actually said there is no anthropogenic contribution. I have said that the science tends to be presented very badly and superficially. And very, very flamboyantly. I say again….documentaries are not scientific papers.

i’ll agree with buffy re docos. when i watch astronomy or cosmological docos i always find the cgi is overdone and the actual science underdone. and i have watched scores of them. there are exceptions but they are rare.

buffy said:

Now, this is what I am after:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453296a.html

I can’t actually read the paper because you have to pay for it, and I can’t find a copy for free online. It may be there somewhere. But the summary at that link points out the good and bad about doing a meta analysis. I want to read stuff that is aware of its own shortcomings and points them out.

To return to this post. Why do you think that in documentaries, the scientists will only give one side of the story? However, if you are researching the temperature or CO2 and methane emissions, plus the extent of vegetable matter in the tundra. Just where are you going to get a different picture, other than referring to the Andrew Bolt’s of this world.

buffy said:

>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of scientists involved with global warming support anthropogenic contribution.<<

And there is the other thing that does get my back up. A good scientist is never, ever certain that they are right. You put up a hypothesis. And then you do your best to shoot it down. Otherwise you are far too likely to apply confirmation bias. And I have not actually said there is no anthropogenic contribution. I have said that the science tends to be presented very badly and superficially. And very, very flamboyantly. I say again….documentaries are not scientific papers.

Being scientific as you claim buffy, you would want to include the rest of my statement:

>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of scientists involved with global warming support anthropogenic contribution.
Also global warming and the reasons for it are not conjecture, but fact and also accepted by the scientific community.
Any conflict concerns relate to the extent and when things are going to happen. So although you state you want more details, you ignore and also refute global warming itself. You remind me of a couple people about to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff, but arguing with each other as to where they should land.<<

JudgeMental said:

i’ll agree with buffy re docos. when i watch astronomy or cosmological docos i always find the cgi is overdone and the actual science underdone. and i have watched scores of them. there are exceptions but they are rare.

As my time and interest is almost exclusively on this planet, especially the flora and fauna I seldom watch astronomy or cosmological docos, so cannot really comment on them. However there are some excellent documentaries on the subjects that interest me and of which I have some knowledge. My interests also include global warming because of the impact it will have on the flora and fauna and these too have in the main been very informative, especially the explanation given by the scientists on what they are working on. To discard documentaries as uninformed and not worth looking at is preposterous and only reflects the lack of concern for the real world of their critics.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Now, this is what I am after:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453296a.html

I can’t actually read the paper because you have to pay for it, and I can’t find a copy for free online. It may be there somewhere. But the summary at that link points out the good and bad about doing a meta analysis. I want to read stuff that is aware of its own shortcomings and points them out.

To return to this post. Why do you think that in documentaries, the scientists will only give one side of the story? However, if you are researching the temperature or CO2 and methane emissions, plus the extent of vegetable matter in the tundra. Just where are you going to get a different picture, other than referring to the Andrew Bolt’s of this world.

Why do you keep bring Andrew Bolt up.

You are the only one who has referred to him.

>>To discard documentaries as uninformed and not worth looking at is preposterous and only reflects the lack of concern for the real world of their critics.<<

I did not say docos were uninformed. I said I find them to be, in general, lightweight. I said I want to read peer reviewed papers. This is a science forum. I am capable of reading a scientific paper. I pointed to one that I found on a search. It’s difficult to find them with normal search engines. They turn up lots and lots of hysteria, journalistic comment and pop science summaries.

probably find a logical fallacy to suit jjjust moi.

And here is something interesting. If you put ‘global warming’ into Google Scholar, the papers with the most citations are 6 or 7 years old. OK, they’ll be more cited if they have been around longer, but there are very few papers from the past few years that have many citations.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/sitemapgw.html

Look. Science. With references. And without hype.

buffy said:

I have problems with extremists of either colour. I do not think this world was made with particular conditions for humans – I don’t believe in a god. I see no particular reason to think it should stay stable at the correct temperature etc for any particular animal that has evolved on it. That includes us. We are a very recent animal and it is quite possible for our time to be limited. We probably fit into quite a small window. The dinosaurs lasted a lot longer than we have so far. We are delicate and need very defined conditions to survive. Over the planet-time, not much of it has been conducive to our survival. And it won’t stay the way we need it, even if we minimize our impact. Internal changes in terms of earthquakes and volcanos etc and external ones in the form of impacts from space are completely outside our control. I accept that we are just one of the experiments. I don’t think we are especially special from the point of view of the lifecycle of this planet. Just one of the things that has happened.

I also have a great deal of trouble with timescales. It is difficult, but I like to think I can stretch my imagination to thousands of years, and sometimes I can get an inkling of millions of years. Even understanding that here in South West Victoria there was an Ice Age a mere 10,000 years ago is a bit mind boggling. So even a couple of hundred years of temperature measurements, with instrumentation that has been changing, particularly rapidly in the past 50 years, and with relocation of weather stations as cities have grown becomes difficult to fit into the long term view as it is such a small amount of time.

Point 1: The great majority of scientists and others who support action to reduce GHG emissions are not extremists.

Point 2: The fact that climate conditions are certain to change significantly in the long term does not mean that there is no point in minimising adverse changes in the short term. Quite the opposite in fact.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Now, this is what I am after:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0809/full/453296a.html

I can’t actually read the paper because you have to pay for it, and I can’t find a copy for free online. It may be there somewhere. But the summary at that link points out the good and bad about doing a meta analysis. I want to read stuff that is aware of its own shortcomings and points them out.

To return to this post. Why do you think that in documentaries, the scientists will only give one side of the story? However, if you are researching the temperature or CO2 and methane emissions, plus the extent of vegetable matter in the tundra. Just where are you going to get a different picture, other than referring to the Andrew Bolt’s of this world.

Why do you keep bring Andrew Bolt up.

You are the only one who has referred to him.

Because I want to refer to him and what he represents.

buffy said:

>>To discard documentaries as uninformed and not worth looking at is preposterous and only reflects the lack of concern for the real world of their critics.<<

I did not say docos were uninformed. I said I find them to be, in general, lightweight. I said I want to read peer reviewed papers. This is a science forum. I am capable of reading a scientific paper. I pointed to one that I found on a search. It’s difficult to find them with normal search engines. They turn up lots and lots of hysteria, journalistic comment and pop science summaries.

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

buffy said:

And here is something interesting. If you put ‘global warming’ into Google Scholar, the papers with the most citations are 6 or 7 years old. OK, they’ll be more cited if they have been around longer, but there are very few papers from the past few years that have many citations.

Global Warming covers a huge range of research. Not impressed.

buffy said:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/sitemapgw.html

Look. Science. With references. And without hype.

Go for you, now all you need do is find the rest too.

PermeateFree said:

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Can someone translate the above?

Actually, thinking about it…don’t bother.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Can someone translate the above?

Actually, thinking about it…don’t bother.

Is a bit all over the shop. I think he is missing RB, been spoiling for a fight by the looks of the posts.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Can someone translate the above?

Actually, thinking about it…don’t bother.

Well obviously you don’t read too many.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>To discard documentaries as uninformed and not worth looking at is preposterous and only reflects the lack of concern for the real world of their critics.<<

I did not say docos were uninformed. I said I find them to be, in general, lightweight. I said I want to read peer reviewed papers. This is a science forum. I am capable of reading a scientific paper. I pointed to one that I found on a search. It’s difficult to find them with normal search engines. They turn up lots and lots of hysteria, journalistic comment and pop science summaries.

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Yes, I can read a scientific paper. You recommended documentaries. I prefer the real stuff. You did not offer any links to science as such.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Can someone translate the above?

Actually, thinking about it…don’t bother.

Well obviously you don’t read too many.

Got it in one, sweetheart.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>To discard documentaries as uninformed and not worth looking at is preposterous and only reflects the lack of concern for the real world of their critics.<<

I did not say docos were uninformed. I said I find them to be, in general, lightweight. I said I want to read peer reviewed papers. This is a science forum. I am capable of reading a scientific paper. I pointed to one that I found on a search. It’s difficult to find them with normal search engines. They turn up lots and lots of hysteria, journalistic comment and pop science summaries.

So you are capable of reading a scientific paper? Well you would be a lot better than most, if not all scientist. I think you read some of the stuff I read, you would understand about as much as I would reading your journals. Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Yes, I can read a scientific paper. You recommended documentaries. I prefer the real stuff. You did not offer any links to science as such.

I don’t believe you and if you persist, then you obviously have not tried to read many, if any, papers outside of your specific field of interest.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Can someone translate the above?

Actually, thinking about it…don’t bother.

Well obviously you don’t read too many.

Got it in one, sweetheart.

Thought so, never took you as an intellect.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Well obviously you don’t read too many.

Got it in one, sweetheart.

A fairer call has never been made on this site.
Thought so, never took you as an intellect.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Got it in one, sweetheart.

A fairer call has never been made on this site.
Thought so, never took you as an intellect.

Pleased you agree with my assessment of you.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

A fairer call has never been made on this site.
Thought so, never took you as an intellect.

Pleased you agree with my assessment of you.

You are excellent at ad hominem attacks, but post very little of the science you espouse.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Pleased you agree with my assessment of you.

You are excellent at ad hominem attacks, but post very little of the science you espouse.

Considerably more than you, in fact I cannot remember you ever posting anything remotely scientific.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Pleased you agree with my assessment of you.

You are excellent at ad hominem attacks, but post very little of the science you espouse.

Considerably more than you, in fact I cannot remember you ever posting anything remotely scientific.

OK you want something scientific.

In the 30s of the last century a doctor came up with a thing called frontal lobotomy.

97% of scientists thought this was a great thing, the guy involved even got a Nobel.

It took a fair while before it was found to be dangerous quackery.

Scientific enough?

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

You are excellent at ad hominem attacks, but post very little of the science you espouse.

Considerably more than you, in fact I cannot remember you ever posting anything remotely scientific.

OK you want something scientific.

In the 30s of the last century a doctor came up with a thing called frontal lobotomy.

97% of scientists thought this was a great thing, the guy involved even got a Nobel.

It took a fair while before it was found to be dangerous quackery.

Scientific enough?

What has that got to do with global warming? Nothing! Global warming is scientific fact not an unsubstantiated opinion of a single individual. To be honest a great deal is said in support of science here, but there are precious few that actually seem to know what it is about. This is not a science forum, but it a social one, where any criticism of one has the others trying to get even on their behalf

The common practise is to bully those you dislike by undermining them, demonising them, unfairly criticize everything they say and if that doesn’t work, send them to Coventry. Look I have been through the lot, plus many other dirty tricks, both here and previous fora. It used to hurt, but I learnt to defend myself and that is something you cannot abide, you being bullies and all.

In the past year you bullied BC to get him to leave, when it was him who would mainly introduced topics of scientific content, but you didn’t like him and after your continual bullying left. The next to go was Kii who was also bullied to leave. Riff was another of your victims, not in the way he acted at the end, but due to your callous undermining of him. You almost drove Skeptic Pete away, which I suspect was offended by your unethical plotting against others. Lastly there is Roughbarked, again mercilessly bullied over a long period, and although he might return was obviously very upset by his experience. He was also encouraged to be the attack dog in certain situation, something which he is ill-prepared and again was periodically wounded for the benefit of a couple of manipulating creeps.

I think you should realise I have my own reasons for being here and very little of that involves trying to break through your childish exclusion. So do what you like, I simply don’t care.

Please accept this simple picture as my thousand word contribution.

>>>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of
scientists involved with global warming
support anthropogenic contribution.
<<<

Not quite.

A possible anthropogenic contribution,,,yes

In that 97% you can include Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Christy etc, etc.
You see – 97% of sceptical scientists also support (a potential) anthropogenic, contribution.

97% of sceptical scientists agree that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere
&
that CO2 is a green house gas

Of course definitive evidence to support the link between the warming between the mid
1970s to the late 1990s with CO2 forcing still eludes all.
Some believe the evidence is there; but that’s simply not true.

>>> Any conflict concerns relate to the extent <<<

Yes, the extent, which entirely relies on net feedback to a forcing.

And they can’t measure the feedback, at present.
That’s why we have ‘model ranges for 2 x CO2 scenarios.

But the observations are telling those who listen that feedback is far less than IPCC predictions.

Even the IPCCs latest effort refused to give a ‘best guess outcome for 2 x CO2
because the panel couldn’t agree.

They even reduced the range back down to 1.5C

Because there are many papers now finding sensitivity far less than the (old) IPCCs 3C best guess

party_pants said:

Please accept this simple picture as my thousand word contribution.

Thanks p_p, most apt.

Well think of it as a parable PF.

Sometimes, just sometimes that 3% are correct. Which is something you are not prepared to countenance.

I know enough about computer modelling and statistical analyisis to know that the old saying GIGO and herd mentality can be closely related.

You however are not interested in any opinion bar yours.

That last rant shows signs of a presecution complex.

PermeateFree said:

Lastly there is Roughbarked, again mercilessly bullied over a long period, and although he might return was obviously very upset by his experience. He was also encouraged to be the attack dog in certain situation, something which he is ill-prepared and again was periodically wounded for the benefit of a couple of manipulating creeps.

I reckon I will wait till I see what RB thinks.

The_observer said:

>>>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of
scientists involved with global warming
support anthropogenic contribution.
<<<

Not quite.

A possible anthropogenic contribution,,,yes

In that 97% you can include Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Christy etc, etc.
You see – 97% of sceptical scientists also support (a potential) anthropogenic, contribution.

97% of sceptical scientists agree that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere
&
that CO2 is a green house gas

Of course definitive evidence to support the link between the warming between the mid
1970s to the late 1990s with CO2 forcing still eludes all.
Some believe the evidence is there; but that’s simply not true.

>>> Any conflict concerns relate to the extent <<<

Yes, the extent, which entirely relies on net feedback to a forcing.

And they can’t measure the feedback, at present.
That’s why we have ‘model ranges for 2 x CO2 scenarios.

But the observations are telling those who listen that feedback is far less than IPCC predictions.

Even the IPCCs latest effort refused to give a ‘best guess outcome for 2 x CO2
because the panel couldn’t agree.

They even reduced the range back down to 1.5C

Because there are many papers now finding sensitivity far less than the (old) IPCCs 3C best guess

Pretty please, white next time.

The_observer said:

>>>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of
scientists involved with global warming
support anthropogenic contribution.
<<<

Not quite.

A possible anthropogenic contribution,,,yes

In that 97% you can include Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Christy etc, etc.
You see – 97% of sceptical scientists also support (a potential) anthropogenic, contribution.

97% of sceptical scientists agree that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere
&
that CO2 is a green house gas

Of course definitive evidence to support the link between the warming between the mid
1970s to the late 1990s with CO2 forcing still eludes all.
Some believe the evidence is there; but that’s simply not true.

>>> Any conflict concerns relate to the extent <<<

Yes, the extent, which entirely relies on net feedback to a forcing.

And they can’t measure the feedback, at present.
That’s why we have ‘model ranges for 2 x CO2 scenarios.

But the observations are telling those who listen that feedback is far less than IPCC predictions.

Even the IPCCs latest effort refused to give a ‘best guess outcome for 2 x CO2
because the panel couldn’t agree.

They even reduced the range back down to 1.5C

Because there are many papers now finding sensitivity far less than the (old) IPCCs 3C best guess

Now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of. It is people like him that have worked so hard to undermine the integrity of science and to create doubt, thereby slowing any action on GW. It is people like him that are condemning your children to a rotten life, full of great difficulty, pain and discomfort. But not much going on in that quarter, which makes you just as culpable.

jjjust moi said:

Well think of it as a parable PF.

Sometimes, just sometimes that 3% are correct. Which is something you are not prepared to countenance.

I know enough about computer modelling and statistical analyisis to know that the old saying GIGO and herd mentality can be closely related.

You however are not interested in any opinion bar yours.

That last rant shows signs of a presecution complex.

It is fact, not theory. Don’t you read, listen or watch what is going on around you?

>>>Now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of. It is people like him that have worked so hard to undermine the integrity of science and to create doubt, thereby slowing any action on GW. It is people like him that are condemning your children to a rotten life, full of great difficulty, pain and discomfort. But not much going on in that quarter, which makes you just as culpable.<<<

LOL

you are a fuckwit Perm.

And a paedophile!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of
scientists involved with global warming
support anthropogenic contribution.
<<<

Not quite.

A possible anthropogenic contribution,,,yes

In that 97% you can include Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Christy etc, etc.
You see – 97% of sceptical scientists also support (a potential) anthropogenic, contribution.

97% of sceptical scientists agree that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere
&
that CO2 is a green house gas

Of course definitive evidence to support the link between the warming between the mid
1970s to the late 1990s with CO2 forcing still eludes all.
Some believe the evidence is there; but that’s simply not true.

>>> Any conflict concerns relate to the extent <<<

Yes, the extent, which entirely relies on net feedback to a forcing.

And they can’t measure the feedback, at present.
That’s why we have ‘model ranges for 2 x CO2 scenarios.

But the observations are telling those who listen that feedback is far less than IPCC predictions.

Even the IPCCs latest effort refused to give a ‘best guess outcome for 2 x CO2
because the panel couldn’t agree.

They even reduced the range back down to 1.5C

Because there are many papers now finding sensitivity far less than the (old) IPCCs 3C best guess

Now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of. It is people like him that have worked so hard to undermine the integrity of science and to create doubt, thereby slowing any action on GW. It is people like him that are condemning your children to a rotten life, full of great difficulty, pain and discomfort. But not much going on in that quarter, which makes you just as culpable.

Answer the post.

Never mind the personal attacks.

You can’t can you?

You’re as bad as a fundie religous nut.

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

The_observer said:

>>>Now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of. It is people like him that have worked so hard to undermine the integrity of science and to create doubt, thereby slowing any action on GW. It is people like him that are condemning your children to a rotten life, full of great difficulty, pain and discomfort. But not much going on in that quarter, which makes you just as culpable.<<<

LOL

you are a fuckwit Perm.

And a paedophile!

Bet you have spent a lot of time doing time. So likely never been married, or if you have are an overbearing bully. You are a total waste observer, no good for yourself or anyone, just a lump of slime.

>>>You’re as bad as a fundie religous nut.
<<<

Yep, got that in one. Perm is an extremist.

I mean, anyone who who seriously write

“now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of”

Jesus, even the Rev would never say that to me, even in his angriest moment

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>>You seem to forget buffy that over 97% of
scientists involved with global warming
support anthropogenic contribution.
<<<

Not quite.

A possible anthropogenic contribution,,,yes

In that 97% you can include Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Christy etc, etc.
You see – 97% of sceptical scientists also support (a potential) anthropogenic, contribution.

97% of sceptical scientists agree that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere
&
that CO2 is a green house gas

Of course definitive evidence to support the link between the warming between the mid
1970s to the late 1990s with CO2 forcing still eludes all.
Some believe the evidence is there; but that’s simply not true.

>>> Any conflict concerns relate to the extent <<<

Yes, the extent, which entirely relies on net feedback to a forcing.

And they can’t measure the feedback, at present.
That’s why we have ‘model ranges for 2 x CO2 scenarios.

But the observations are telling those who listen that feedback is far less than IPCC predictions.

Even the IPCCs latest effort refused to give a ‘best guess outcome for 2 x CO2
because the panel couldn’t agree.

They even reduced the range back down to 1.5C

Because there are many papers now finding sensitivity far less than the (old) IPCCs 3C best guess

Now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of. It is people like him that have worked so hard to undermine the integrity of science and to create doubt, thereby slowing any action on GW. It is people like him that are condemning your children to a rotten life, full of great difficulty, pain and discomfort. But not much going on in that quarter, which makes you just as culpable.

Answer the post.

Never mind the personal attacks.

You can’t can you?

You’re as bad as a fundie religous nut.

You cannot discuss or argue anything with these people, as you cannot with Creationists, they have the same mindset. Is that your mindset too?

And you should both learn to go the science, not go the man. It is considered very unscientific to attack the person. You should always be focussed on the science.

buffy said:

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

Nice one, Buffy. Maths this ain’t :)

<<<Bet you="" have="" spent="" a="" lot="" of="" time="" doing="" time.="" So="" likely="" never="" been="" married,="" <br=""/><<<

LOL again. 51, married, to the lady I’ve been with since I was 19.

Two teenagers.

Never been in jail.

No criminal record.

Hurts, doesn’t it, Perm

:0000

>>>You are a total waste observer, no good for yourself or anyone, just a lump of slime. <<<

Wow, Nasty

buffy said:

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

—-

Cool. Iridologists have some hope. :)

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of. It is people like him that have worked so hard to undermine the integrity of science and to create doubt, thereby slowing any action on GW. It is people like him that are condemning your children to a rotten life, full of great difficulty, pain and discomfort. But not much going on in that quarter, which makes you just as culpable.

Answer the post.

Never mind the personal attacks.

You can’t can you?

You’re as bad as a fundie religous nut.

You cannot discuss or argue anything with these people, as you cannot with Creationists, they have the same mindset. Is that your mindset too?

TO has posted many pages of graphs and references, your replies have no science, just personal attacks.

Show me were you refuted one of the posts with any sort of logic.

buffy said:

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

So a dog is not a dog, a cat not a cat, a mountain not a mountain, opal not opal, etc., etc., etc., despite them all having scientific properties. Global warming is derived from certain well established facts, making it also a fact. For goodness sake if you want keep making these stupid comments at least get your facts right.

<<<In science,="" everything="" can="" be="" queried.="" Nothing="" is="" immutable.<<<<="" p="">

>>>For goodness sake if you want keep making these stupid comments at least get your facts right.<<<

Perm, you remind me of a fuckwit

The_observer said:

>>>You’re as bad as a fundie religous nut.
<<<

Yep, got that in one. Perm is an extremist.

I mean, anyone who who seriously write

“now this is one bloke who should be bullied and disposed of”

Jesus, even the Rev would never say that to me, even in his angriest moment

That is because you are rubbish observer and should be thrown away.

Buffy posted a reputable link with queries on climate change historically.

You had no reply to that except your usual drivel.

>>>>That is because you are rubbish observer and should be thrown away.<<<

How old are you ?

buffy said:

And you should both learn to go the science, not go the man. It is considered very unscientific to attack the person. You should always be focussed on the science.

I have been attacked in every conceivable manner by many people and even by your on a previous forum and cowardly under your other name of dragonet. So please save your self-righteous hypocritical comments to yourself.

Perm,

I’m going to tell my

great, great, great, great Grand kiddies about you.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

So a dog is not a dog, a cat not a cat, a mountain not a mountain, opal not opal, etc., etc., etc., despite them all having scientific properties. Global warming is derived from certain well established facts, making it also a fact. For goodness sake if you want keep making these stupid comments at least get your facts right.

Yes, Buffy, this is what you’re missing. Now the theory of phlogiston, there’s one that has stood the test of time. Nearly complete agreement about this one. Oh, by the way; I have heard that a horse is a horse, of course, of course.

sibeen said:

buffy said:

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

Nice one, Buffy. Maths this ain’t :)

Again a very narrow appreciation of science. You should get out more sibeen.

<<<even by="" your="" on="" a="" previous="" forum="" and="" cowardly="" under="" your="" <br=""/>other name of dragonet. <<<

top points to you J.M

<<<So please="" save="" your="" self-righteous="" hypocritical="" comments="" to="" yourself.<<<<="" p="">

crickey, pot kettle black

>>Cool. Iridologists have some hope. :)<<

Yep….but first they need to agree on a common iris map and not all use different ones…

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Answer the post.

Never mind the personal attacks.

You can’t can you?

You’re as bad as a fundie religous nut.

You cannot discuss or argue anything with these people, as you cannot with Creationists, they have the same mindset. Is that your mindset too?

TO has posted many pages of graphs and references, your replies have no science, just personal attacks.

Show me were you refuted one of the posts with any sort of logic.

I watched the Rev debating this character on many occasions, but not once did he make any impression. To argue with these people only gives them credibility.

The IPCC’s reports give qualitative categories of probability, but they also provide tables showing the range of probabilities corresponding to these categories. The IPCC does not claim 100% certainty that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic activities, and does not claim 100% certainty that temperatures will be higher 100 years from now than they are now.

The_observer said:

<<<In science,="" everything="" can="" be="" queried.="" Nothing="" is="" immutable.<<<<="" p="">

>>>For goodness sake if you want keep making these stupid comments at least get your facts right.<<<

Perm, you remind me of a fuckwit

Don’t think I am one of your flock observer. Insults from you means absolutely nothing as I hold you in such contempt. You are dirty rubbish.

dv said:

The IPCC’s reports give qualitative categories of probability, but they also provide tables showing the range of probabilities corresponding to these categories. The IPCC does not claim 100% certainty that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic activities, and does not claim 100% certainty that temperatures will be higher 100 years from now than they are now.

Now you’re in the shit DV.

Permeate, I don’t think I have engaged with you on this topic for around 10 years. I found a long time ago that I was not going to agree with you because you seem to be very, very afraid of change and you seem to want the planet to stay the same because humans like this particular set of conditions. We simply are not that special. Evolve or die. We’ve done it before and we may do it again. Or maybe we won’t. In the perspective of the universe we are nothing.

jjjust moi said:

Now you’re in the shit DV.

In what way is DV in the shit?

jjjust moi said:

Buffy posted a reputable link with queries on climate change historically.

You had no reply to that except your usual drivel.

We were not discussing that only the format. If you can’t follow the thread perhaps you ought to do something else.

<<<
I watched the Rev debating this character on many occasions, but not once did he make any impression. To argue with these people only gives them credibility.
<<<

yes, I too have found the Rev to be that way

The_observer said:

Perm,

I’m going to tell my

great, great, great, great Grand kiddies about you.

I hope you can, because then it would mean your delaying tactics were unsuccessful.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

Now you’re in the shit DV.

In what way is DV in the shit?

Now, why would you think?

Have a guess.

If you were serious about this topic then you would consider how much our government is going to lobby China and India about global warming.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>It is fact, not theory.<<

In science, everything can be queried. Nothing is immutable.

So a dog is not a dog, a cat not a cat, a mountain not a mountain, opal not opal, etc., etc., etc., despite them all having scientific properties. Global warming is derived from certain well established facts, making it also a fact. For goodness sake if you want keep making these stupid comments at least get your facts right.

Yes, Buffy, this is what you’re missing. Now the theory of phlogiston, there’s one that has stood the test of time. Nearly complete agreement about this one. Oh, by the way; I have heard that a horse is a horse, of course, of course.

You are displaying your ignorance sibeen, even esteemed climate scientists have proclaimed it a fact, not once, but many times. Somehow I don’t think you rank with them.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

Now you’re in the shit DV.

In what way is DV in the shit?

Now, why would you think?

Have a guess.

Why not answer or explain?

Great thread. Very entertaining.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

Now you’re in the shit DV.

In what way is DV in the shit?

Now, why would you think?

Have a guess.

I have no idea; that’s why I asked.

The only way in which I can see he might be in the shit is that he made a perfectly reasonable comment about the IPCC methodology, when everyone else just wants to encourage the troll behaviour, apparently.

<<< how much our government is going to lobby China and India
<<

I hear there is 814.5 Million Indians about to vote in their next election.

814.5 Million

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In what way is DV in the shit?

Now, why would you think?

Have a guess.

I have no idea; that’s why I asked.

The only way in which I can see he might be in the shit is that he made a perfectly reasonable comment about the IPCC methodology, when everyone else just wants to encourage the troll behaviour, apparently.

For some the IPCC is Mahommed.

The IPCC’s reports give qualitative categories of probability, but they also provide tables showing the range of probabilities corresponding to these categories. The IPCC does not claim 100% certainty that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic activities, and does not claim 100% certainty that temperatures will be higher 100 years from now than they are now.
——————————————————————

But they do say that with a high level of probability…

The proof will be in the pudding.

And FMD tell me again WhoTF said warmer was wourser…

This is only an argument about what maybe.

>>>And FMD tell me again WhoTF said

warmer was wourser
<

Inspector Clouseau ?

jjjust moi said:

For some the IPCC is Mahommed.

No doubt, but what doe that have to do with this forum?

And even for those who do give the IPCC Mahommed-like status, it is permitted (AFAIK) to discuss what Mahommed actually said.

jjjust moi said:

For some the IPCC is Mahommed.

No doubt, but what doe that have to do with this forum?

And even for those who do give the IPCC Mahommed-like status, it is permitted (AFAIK) to discuss what Mahommed actually said.

814.5 Million
———————-

Yet this thread is about to die by one mans hands…

dv said:

The IPCC’s reports give qualitative categories of probability, but they also provide tables showing the range of probabilities corresponding to these categories. The IPCC does not claim 100% certainty that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic activities, and does not claim 100% certainty that temperatures will be higher 100 years from now than they are now.

Well if you watched the interviews of climate scientists, you would know you are being ridiculous. The IPCC is a highly conservative organisation with scientists from all over the world and just because one or two people carry on like The_observer they therefore cannot claim 100%.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The IPCC’s reports give qualitative categories of probability, but they also provide tables showing the range of probabilities corresponding to these categories. The IPCC does not claim 100% certainty that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic activities, and does not claim 100% certainty that temperatures will be higher 100 years from now than they are now.

Well if you watched the interviews of climate scientists, you would know you are being ridiculous. The IPCC is a highly conservative organisation with scientists from all over the world and just because one or two people carry on like The_observer they therefore cannot claim 100%.

I don’t feel as though I am being ridiculous. I think my two statements above are more or less straightforward and would be well-known by people who read the IPCC’s reports.

>>>and just because one or two people carry on like The_observer they therefore cannot claim 100%.<<<

Hooray

For those interested in some pop science descriptions of how people think…here is an extract from Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen’s contribution in The Science of Discworld IV. And no this is not the Pratchett fantasy bit, this is explanation for the layman of thinking styles.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q_e8SMvqfCAC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=universe+centred+thinking&source=bl&ots=5lfSshRSdt&sig=X7TFTc-s7udBI0J2m4yHlJud-sU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t5VCU_fBFoimkwWV34D4CQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=universe%20centred%20thinking&f=false

It’s all a matter of perspective.

PermeateFree said:

Well if you watched the interviews of climate scientists, you would know you are being ridiculous. The IPCC is a highly conservative organisation with scientists from all over the world and just because one or two people carry on like The_observer they therefore cannot claim 100%.

Hah.

*gets popcorn *

Also, I don’t believe that the fact that the IPCC’s stated probabilities are <100% is because of nutsack denialists creeping onto the committee. It doesn’t represent a vote. It is an assessment based on the uncertainties that come out of climate modelling.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The IPCC’s reports give qualitative categories of probability, but they also provide tables showing the range of probabilities corresponding to these categories. The IPCC does not claim 100% certainty that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic activities, and does not claim 100% certainty that temperatures will be higher 100 years from now than they are now.

Well if you watched the interviews of climate scientists, you would know you are being ridiculous. The IPCC is a highly conservative organisation with scientists from all over the world and just because one or two people carry on like The_observer they therefore cannot claim 100%.

Told you.

It’s all a matter of perspective.
———————————————————-

Say it again. sight seer.
————————————

Maybe…

>>>nutsack denialists<<<

?

Oh, you must mean those that point out the great uncertainties.

buffy said:

Permeate, I don’t think I have engaged with you on this topic for around 10 years. I found a long time ago that I was not going to agree with you because you seem to be very, very afraid of change and you seem to want the planet to stay the same because humans like this particular set of conditions. We simply are not that special. Evolve or die. We’ve done it before and we may do it again. Or maybe we won’t. In the perspective of the universe we are nothing.

This is not what we are talking about. You accuse me of being afraid of change and this is from someone who been doing the same thing everyday for years. You won’t even look at other TV channels. Never heard of so much tripe. Well I hope you experience the full effect of the changes, but unfortunately, like me, you will most likely be dead! You are so unbelievably ignorant that I am astounded, science and scientists are crying out for governments to do something and you come out with such drivel.

Better things to do than argue with such ignorance.

PermeateFree said:

Better things to do than argue with such ignorance.

See ya! Don’t let the door bang you on the way out.

The_observer said:

>>>nutsack denialists<<<

?

Oh, you must mean those that point out the great uncertainties.

The uncertainties are small

science and scientists are crying out for governments to do something
————————————————————————

Yeah, it’s a nice call to arms…

But by the end of the day_only_ doing less will ultimately do less harm.

The answer may be only logical.

Meh.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Better things to do than argue with such ignorance.

See ya! Don’t let the door bang you on the way out.

Reckon you ought to change your name Willy, because you aren’t very witty.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Better things to do than argue with such ignorance.

See ya! Don’t let the door bang you on the way out.

Now, now, witty, let’s not be ungracious to our guests. Remember your manners, Sir.

>>>The uncertainties are small<<<

Climate Science & The Uncertainty Monster
by J. a. Curry and P. J. Webster

An exploration of ways to understand, assess and reason about uncertainty in climate
science, with specific application to the IPCC assessment process.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Better things to do than argue with such ignorance.

See ya! Don’t let the door bang you on the way out.

Now, now, witty, let’s not be ungracious to our guests. Remember your manners, Sir.

Don’t concern yourself, I’ll be back to correct your crap.

good night Perm

The_observer said:

good night Perm

Good night PWM observer.