Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[K-man]

Yes you are. If the facts are the facts and they are true the source doesn't matter. If I say 2+2=4 it doesn't matter who signs my check. Or what my degree is in, or who my parents are, or my girlfriends dogs name. If its true then its true regardless

If the 'facts' are indeed true then you are right, the source doesn't matter. Unfortunately 'facts' are not always black or white and some people choose the facts that fit their position and ignore the others which don't. Where it gets particularly messy is when people are paid to ignore the facts that adversely affect the position of the benefactor.

So did temps rise or not. Your the one going LA Lalala because you know it's true and you can't say it because it goes against your religion

Overall temperatures rose. It just depends on what part of the planet absorbed that heat. But to look at the graph which has been steadily rising for decades and say that global temperatures are not rising is nonsense. As I said before, if you take a peak 17 years ago and say temperatures haven't risen since then it is ingenuous to say the least. Perhaps you could take a look at 10 year averages to get rid of the noise on annual ups and downs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-deny-global-warming-after-seeing-this-graph/

except a fact is a fact. 2+2 always =4 its a fact. Temps didn't go up over the last 17 years can be proven true as a fact. it doesn't matter who says it if its true.

Just that it is not as clear cut as that.

Let's have a hypothetical. You, as a cop, are at the scene of a stabbing murder by a river. There is a suspect there who you proceed to question? The victim was obviously killed with a knife, fact, but the suspect does not have a knife in his possession. That is also a fact. Divers subsequently find a knife with the suspects finger prints in the river nearby, fact. They go to court and the case is dismissed because it was a fact that the suspect did not have a knife on him when he was questioned ... I don't think so.

Being selective with the facts doesn't work, sorry.

WRONG its full of theory and not even all scientists agree on the theory. That's not proof. That's a guess

Yep one you don't want to touch because you know there is nothing that can be done

As I said before, there is no 'proof'. But the 'evidence' is there if we are prepared to look. I am prepared to say "there is no global warming and we are heading for an ice age" if you can show me facts to support that position. You are not prepared to say "there is global warming that is likely to have a serious effect on our existence", despite overwhelming evidence.

As to whether anything can be done or not, that is a different argument. Does a smoker with the beginnings of heart disease continue to smoke? Sadly the answer is often yes.

facts are facts

True ... and facts provide evidence that may or may not by themselves produce proof.
:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

We can go round and round if you want. However the fact remains you can't prove 100% that warming is man made. So all the praying to the warming gods won't change that. It is what it is. Perhaps we did cause it but perhaps we didn't. You believe what you want it means nothing to me. But don't tell me we need fundamental changes to society on a theory. There are real and factual reasons to clean things up. Focus on them and leave chicken little to the fairy tales

 

[Flying Crane]

and the Earth is flat, too!

 

[ballen0351]

and the Earth is flat, too!

Yep all the "scientists" believed that at one time as well. Lol. Like I said you keep praying to you warming gods chicken little

 

[K-man]

Yep all the "scientists" believed that at one time as well. Lol. Like I said you keep praying to you warming gods chicken little

So what you are saying is at one time scientists believed there was no global warming. As with flat Earth, theories change as more evidence comes available. Lol.
:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

So what you are saying is at one time scientists believed there was no global warming. As with flat Earth, theories change as more evidence comes available. Lol.
:asian:

Yes I'm saying science isn't always right so we shouldnt create massive changes to world wide energy policy on a theory that's not proven.

 

[Flying Crane]

Besides, climate depot just links to news articles from other sources...it is a collection site...

Here is a look at hurricanes and the U.S....from NOAA

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

so you are willing to trust noaa, since you've linked to data on their site?

here's something of interest from noaa, from December 30, 2013, so it's recent: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

A. Summary Statement

Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity?
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?

In this review, we address these questions in the context of published research findings. We will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:

• It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
  
• There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

and from the body of the report:

A review of existing studies, including the ones cited above, lead us to conclude that it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.

...

In other words, there is little evidence from current dynamical models that 21st century climate warming will lead to large (~300%) increases in tropical storm numbers, hurricane numbers, or PDI in the Atlantic. As noted above, there is some indication from high resolution models of substantial increases in the numbers of the most intense hurricanes even if the overall number of tropical storms or hurricanes decreases. In the Bender et al. 2010 study, we estimate that the effect of increasing category 4-5 storms outweighs the reduction in overall hurricane numbers such that we project (very roughly) a 30% increase in potential damage in the Atlantic basin by 2100. This estimate does not include the influence of future sea level rise or other important factors such as coastal development or changes in building practices.

once again, the facts alone are not truth. the facts are only accurate when presented in the context of the full picture.

and once again, billc's arguments fall apart because he relies on cherry-picking and taking facts out of context, with the intention of misleading the reader.

 

[Flying Crane]

except 30 years ago this was proof we were going back into an ice age. Well that was the accepted theory by "scientists" anyway lol

Im not rejecting REAL science. REAL science shows temps rise and fall naturally over time we are coming OUT of the last Ice Age. See Science tells me to exit an ICE age temps must WARM up some you know to melt the ice that once covered most of the US Canada and Europe. So looking at REAL science I don't need your global warming religion indoctrination

well, here's something of interest: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

from the article

In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

so much for the new ice-age theory of the 1970s...

 

[ballen0351]

well, here's something of interest: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

from the article



so much for the new ice-age theory of the 1970s...

So science got it wrong SHOCKER

 

[K-man]

So science got it wrong SHOCKER

No. Most of them got it right. As now, there were a minority talking of an ice age then and there is a minority denying the effects of global warming now.
:asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

No. Most of them got it right. As now, there were a minority talking of an ice age then and there is a minority denying the effects of global warming now.
:asian:

and more to the point, even back in the 1970s when a few scientists were suggesting the possibility of a new ice age a majority of scientists were already predicting a warming trend. This was spotted decades ago, and the evidence in support grows and grows. the new ice age idea was little more than a sideshow distraction, even when it was first suggested.

 

[billc]

"Sientists". Can't even get it right when it comes to the human body, something they can actually examine, in great detail, over years and years...and they still get things wrong...

Rush covered this article on his show today...

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf...bon_dioxide_the_new_cholesterol_mulshine.html

And imagine the Washington Post wrote an editorial stating, "Government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis of just this kind of incomplete but suggestive evidence, and there is a consensus on what to do."
That sounds like the current debate over climate change, doesn’t it? Nope. That editorial is from 1980. The issue was not levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but levels of cholesterol in the diet.
In that case, the consensus was that the amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol in the diet are related to the levels of cholesterol in the blood and "that reducing the one will lower the other," the Post wrote.
That seemed to be the case at the time. But there were dissenters who claimed carbohydrates, particularly refined ones, were the more likely triggers for obesity and heart disease. That led the mainstream authorities to hold a "Consensus Conference" in 1984. The result was a national policy emphasizing low-fat diets as a means of combating obesity and heart disease.
Soon the market was inundated with low-fat foods. But they weren’t having the desired effect. By 2002, the cracks in the consensus were so evident that the New York Times Magazine ran a lengthy and well-researched article by noted science writer Gary Taubes headlined "What if it’s all been a big fat lie?"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]"It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association," Taubes wrote. "Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Last month, the prior consensus was turned on its head by a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. A meta-analysis of 76 studies and clinical trials showed no link between fat, even saturated fat, and increased heart-disease risk.[/FONT]

 

[Flying Crane]

quoting rush. there's a desperate, stupid move.

this article is a clear example of grasping at straws

 

[billc]

I liked your post Flying Crane...especially the most accurate part...

It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.

 

[billc]

uh no, he read from an article by a liberal columnist...

 

[Makalakumu]

But don't tell me we need fundamental changes to society on a theory

Supporters of global warming are always very cognizant of where the money is coming from when it comes to their opposition. I think they are correct in pointing out the potential for bias when it comes from scientists who are receiving money from stakeholders who have a direct conflict of interest with the political ramifications of the climate change debate.

I wish that supporters would turn a little of that skepticism on the political side of the people who are funding pro-climate change studies. These people are not independent. Organizations that support the theory of human caused climate change have an authoritarian political agenda that completely reshapes a society. This is not something that simply appeared absent any history. Supporters of a global political unit complete with global taxes and bureaucracy have been dreaming up schemes to get this done since before WWI. They have proven that they will say and/or do whatever it takes to get this going.

If the dollars from oil companies can compromise research, then dollars coming from the NGOs and other international organizations to push their agenda can compromise research. If human caused climate change is a real problem, there are many solutions that could handle it. This overwhelming push toward carbon taxes and global bureaucracy is the worst solution and reeks of agenda driven science.

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...Freeman Dyson, a genius...who doubts greenhouse gases ate bad...

Climate science is infinitely more complicated than human physiology. Once all of the data are in, we may find that atmospheric carbon dioxide‚ actually has the effect predicted by physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton. The 90-year-old Dyson, whom many consider to be the smartest guy on Earth, argues that far from harming the planet, atmospheric C)-2‚ may have a positive effect by increasing plant growth.


Perhaps you disagree. Fine, but you’re disagreeing with a guy who calculated the number of atoms in the sun when he was 5 years old and who’s been at the institute since Einstein was walking the grounds.

 

[Flying Crane]

I liked your post Flying Crane...especially the most accurate part...

that you focus on this and ignore the rest of the report is a clear example of your tactic of cherry-picking and presenting information out of context.

you have not raised a credible point yet.

 

[billc]

Science requires taking the long view, said Dyson when I called him the other day.


"Science of course is always correcting mistakes," he said. "That’s what it’s all about."

....

 

[billc]

Cherry picking? It is your post and the first sentence...