Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

Lol so when your team cooks the books for green energy its cool but if fossil fuels companies do it well that's bad. Well when you give up your fossil fuel use then you can lecture me until then....well I might take my 78 ford bronco that gets about 8mpgs out for a spin tonight.

oh puh-leeeze.

hide your head in the sand. You've said over and over here in the forums that that is what you'll do. So do it. It's clear that you either lack the capacity, or have decided to simply refuse to understand even in the most simple way, what climate change is all about. you are utterly unsurprising.

 

[K-man]

written by James Taylor, of the Heartland Institute??? Now THAT'S FUNNY STUFFF!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

bill, you have zero credibility. zero.

Not to mention that the article was written nearly three years ago and they were old emails then.
:s40:

 

[Tgace]

Nothing gets a true believer more irritated than not believing in their religion....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

Lol so when your team cooks the books for green energy its cool but if fossil fuels companies do it well that's bad. Well when you give up your fossil fuel use then you can lecture me until then....well I might take my 78 ford bronco that gets about 8mpgs out for a spin tonight.

I have no team. I do have a bush property here that my son wants to build on but with increasing fire danger in the area we may not be able to do so. In Victoria, we now have a huge desalination plant in place for the time when we don't have enough rainfall in an area that has always had plentiful rainfall. Our average temperatures have been increasing for the past 50 years and almost every year breaks new records. The seasons no longer make sense with earlier spring and longer summer. And the rainfall ... last month 50% down on the average.

I don't have any doubt that the climate is changing. We can't give up on fossil fuel in the short term so don't stress yourself over going for a spin in the Bronco, but perhaps an acknowledgement of what is happening in the world around you mightn't be a bad start, if you can leave behind Bill's BS sources.
:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

oh puh-leeeze.

hide your head in the sand. You've said over and over here in the forums that that is what you'll do. So do it. It's clear that you either lack the capacity, or have decided to simply refuse to understand even in the most simple way, what climate change is all about. you are utterly unsurprising.

Had a nice drive it was a nice night. Burned a few gals of that deadly fossil fuel. Lol. You keep on keeping on my heads not in the sand I don't believe either side they are both out for their own interest. So I'll take the common sense approach. We are exiting from the last ice age. So if we are leaving an ice age it's only natural that the ice will melt. Shocker I know. However a 100 years of smoke stacks won't change that.
But of it makes you feel better to question my ability to understand things that's fine. I also have no desire to surprise you. Again when you give up all use of fossil fuel then you can lecture me. Until then keep spitting in the wind

 

[Flying Crane]

Nothing gets a true believer more irritated than not believing in their religion....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

oh now THAT is funny!

 

[ballen0351]

I have no team. I do have a bush property here that my son wants to build on but with increasing fire danger in the area we may not be able to do so. In Victoria, we now have a huge desalination plant in place for the time when we don't have enough rainfall in an area that has always had plentiful rainfall. Our average temperatures have been increasing for the past 50 years and almost every year breaks new records. The seasons no longer make sense with earlier spring and longer summer. And the rainfall ... last month 50% down on the average.

I don't have any doubt that the climate is changing. We can't give up on fossil fuel in the short term so don't stress yourself over going for a spin in the Bronco, but perhaps an acknowledgement of what is happening in the world around you mightn't be a bad start, if you can leave behind Bill's BS sources.
:asian:

So were coming out of an ice age and temps are on a slight rise over the last few hundred years. Go figure

 

[Flying Crane]

Had a nice drive it was a nice night. Burned a few gals of that deadly fossil fuel. Lol. You keep on keeping on my heads not in the sand I don't believe either side they are both out for their own interest. So I'll take the common sense approach. We are exiting from the last ice age. So if we are leaving an ice age it's only natural that the ice will melt. Shocker I know. However a 100 years of smoke stacks won't change that.
But of it makes you feel better to question my ability to understand things that's fine. I also have no desire to surprise you. Again when you give up all use of fossil fuel then you can lecture me. Until then keep spitting in the wind

the record speaks for itself.

 

[ballen0351]

View attachment $areligionofglobalwarming.gifhttp://www.globalosophy.com/images/areligionofglobalwarming.gif

Nothing gets a true believer more irritated than not believing in their religion....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

the record speaks for itself.

You give up using that evil fossil fuel yet?

 

[billc]

From their own emails, they falsified data, they destroyed their data, they tried to keep other scientists from examining and testing their theories and tried to get people fired for allowing them to publish papers that didn't agree with them...and these are the people we are supposed to trust about global warming...:lfao:

When you are a scientist and you believe in your work...you don't do any of the things listed above...

if you can leave behind Bill's BS sources.

You mean the very scientists whose own e-mails show they lied about their data...those sources...

Of course the scandal was whitwashed by the same people who cleared the Sandusky scandal at Penn state...

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/...te-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/

Money not Morals Motivated Penn. State University Board
At the height of the Climategate controversy statistical experts like Steve McIntyre and Edward Wegman demonstrated that Mann’s mangling of the statistics “erased” the Medieval Warm Period, along with other well established temperature variations. [1.]
McIntyre noted: “It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program.”
Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute observes, “The Penn State ethics review [of Mann] was “designed as a whitewash. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong.” Ebell and other critics argue that, as with football coach Sandusky, Michael E. Mann brought huge financial rewards to the university. The smell of money swayed the senses of Spanier because in his world money and success equated to integrity and prestige. This was tellingly revealed in the reasons he gave why Mann should be exonerated.
Such critics point to Spanier’s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann’s:
“level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”

Leaked emails proved Mann was an influential figure among climatologists accused of fixing global warming records to win lucrative government research grants worth millions. In particular, evidence reveals a statistical “trick…to hide the decline” in reliability of proxy data in Mann’s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he’s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”
As Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser says: “I would like to have him answer the following: (1) Name (all) the other IPCC authors he shared the prize with; (2.) How much of the money coming with the prize did he declare in his tax return for that year?”

 

[billc]

And another look at the "climategate" scandal...the original release of e-mails by these "scientists."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

And in the beginning there was "Climategate"...

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.
But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

Yeah, there is no money in global warming...:lfao:

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

 

[Makalakumu]

Let's assume global warming is a real problem for a moment. Why aren't any of these low cost solutions even being considered?

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-warming-s-cheap--effective-solution

It is remarkable to consider that we could cancel out this century’s global warming with 1,900 unmanned ships spraying seawater mist into the air to thicken clouds. The total cost would be about $9 billion, and the benefits of preventing the temperature increase would add up to about $20 trillion. That is the equivalent of doing about $2000 worth of good with every dollar spent.

Why have so many people bought into the idea that we have to destroy our society, kill half the population, and create a tax on life itself (carbon tax) in order to solve this problem?

 

[billc]

Another look at "Climatgate"...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794

And CBS news...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fallout-over-climategate-data-leak-grows/

Hans von Storch, director of the Director of Institute for Coastal Research who was assailed by Mann in one e-mail message, calls the CRU axis a "cartel" and suggests that Jones and others avoid reviewing papers. A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said Mann and his allies "should be barred" from future United Nations proceedings and warned that "the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas."

 

[billc]

Of "Climategate," and tree rings...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford

McIntyre noticed a few problems with the way Briffa chose the sampling of Russian trees, and he wrote to Briffa requesting the data Briffa used in a published tree-ring paper. Briffa declined. And so began a four-year saga involving multiple peer-reviewed journals, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Briffa and his closest confidants, and a Freedom of Information Act request on the part of McIntyre that appears to be on the verge of being granted. Even without the final set of data, however, McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology — that of cherry-picking data — when he assembled his data sample, which his clique of like-minded and very powerful peers have also used in paper after paper.

It was already known that the Yamal series contained a preposterously small amount of data. This by itself raised many questions: Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa’s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.

 

[K-man]

From their own emails, they falsified data, they destroyed their data, they tried to keep other scientists from examining and testing their theories and tried to get people fired for allowing them to publish papers that didn't agree with them...and these are the people we are supposed to trust about global warming...:lfao:

When you are a scientist and you believe in your work...you don't do any of the things listed above...



You mean the very scientists whose own e-mails show they lied about their data...those sources...

Of course the scandal was whitwashed by the same people who cleared the Sandusky scandal at Penn state...

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/...te-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/

Well I suppose I should thank you for me spending time researching this issue with regard to Mann. Are you deliberately trying to hide the truth by misrepresenting the published information or are you incapable of reading anything but propaganda?

Mann's original paper covered a period during which they used an approximation that people funded by the oil companies challenged. The data was reanalysed using different criteria and the result was replicated.

In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.

Your information on the stolen emails was also explained but you obviously read nothing of that. When I tried to open the links that you posted one wouldn't open at all and the other went to some over the top religious site.

The most quoted phrase took words from an e-mail of 16 November 1999 written by Phil Jones which referred to a graph he was preparing as a diagram for the cover of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of global climate in 1999. Jones wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. "In science, the term "trick" is slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, in this case Michael E. Mann's technique for comparing two different data sets, and "the decline" referred to the already published divergence problem with tree ring density proxies affecting the post 1960 part of Keith Briffa's reconstruction graph. Despite this and the fact that 1999 had just seen record breaking global temperatures, the email was widely misquoted as a "trick" to "hide the decline" as though it referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, an accusation made publicly by the politicians Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe.

So as to the people to trust in relation to global warming we have a small number of people funded big time by the oil companies and hundreds of reputable scientists on the other. What I found very interesting was funds made available, not to prove climate change research was wrong, to discredit reputable independent scientists.

When a later Wall Street Journal editorial used a graph without error bars in this way, Gerald North described this as "very misleading, in fact downright dishonest". Funding was provided by the American Petroleum Institute for research critical of the graph.

...

Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and wrote "My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review." Barton's committee spokesman sent a sarcastic response to this and to Democrat Henry A. Waxman's letter asking Barton to withdraw the letters and saying he had "failed to hold a single hearing on the subject of global warming" during eleven years as chairman, and had "vociferously opposed all legislative efforts in the Committee to address global warming .... These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

It is far easier to find misleading articles from skeptics than articles from more reputable sources but if you look hard enough ...

The critics of the original 'hockey stick graph' might want to spend some time looking at the actual advance of scientific understanding in this area of research -- which is just one piece of the complex mountain of research on human-caused climate change.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...ht-on-misleading-claims-against-michael-mann/

If anything any doubt I had on man's (no pun intended ) involvement in global warming has been dispelled. I suppose I should thank you for that too.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Let's assume global warming is a real problem for a moment. Why aren't any of these low cost solutions even being considered?

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-warming-s-cheap--effective-solution


Why have so many people bought into the idea that we have to destroy our society, kill half the population, and create a tax on life itself (carbon tax) in order to solve this problem?

Mainly because at the moment this approach is only theory and has not been tested.

Advantages
The techniques use natural and reusable resources i.e. sea water and wind
Cloud albedo levels can be monitored via satellite and the sea spraying mechanisms could be adjusted to fit the data.
Albedo enhancement is considerably cheaper than many other geoengineering techniques.
It utilizes already existing technologies to send sea water droplets into low level oceanic clouds.
The location of the albedo enhancement of clouds can be controlled and localized. This could prevent ecological problems.
Cooling can happen in only the places in which it is required.


Disadvantages
Most of the information on albedo enhancement on clouds is from models and computer simulations. The actual results from spraying sea water into low level clouds may differ from the predicted effect.
Currently the two most commonly proposed plans for sea water dispersal are airplanes and turbine powered ships. The use of airplanes will be time consuming, labor intensive, and result in a large amount of carbon emissions. Turbine powered un-manned ships are the most ecologically friendly, but their capacity to fulfill the role is still not known.
The technique is strongly dependent on wind patterns.
If CO2 increases beyond the predicted rate then albedo enhancement of clouds may not be strong enough to cool the Earth.[25]
The effect of aerosols and its impact on albedo enhancement of clouds has not been significantly researched.[26]
Does not address the problem of ocean acidification caused by increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.


Further research
The amount of water droplets that enter clouds and form additional droplets is not currently known and is affected largely by meteorological factors. Research must be done to assess what percentage of particles will be successful and what the effect of the weather is.
Charging sea water particles to utilize the Earth's electric field may be beneficial.
Climatological and meteorological ramifications must be studied as the technique will alter rainfall, temperature, static stability, and ocean currents.
The effect of aerosols on low level clouds must be better understood. The aerosols may negatively impact efforts to enhance the albedo of clouds.

:asian:

 

[K-man]

Another look at "Climatgate"...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794

And CBS news...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fallout-over-climategate-data-leak-grows/

Perhaps you should read up more on your boy. He is not one of your climate skeptics.

SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?


Storch: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.


SPIEGEL: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?


Storch: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct.


SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?


Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.


SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?


Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

:asian:

 

[K-man]

Of "Climategate," and tree rings...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford

So, another credible source ... or maybe not?

Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier. He is the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog (or, more accurately, "Climate Fraudit"), somehow the co-winner of the 2007 Best ScienceBlogs award (yeah, you just read that) and prime source for cranks in the field. McIntyre is guilty of the same shenanigans as most deniers: distortion of facts, egregious use of quote mining, statistical trickery, conspiracy theorizing, excessive whining, gross hypocrisy, and general stupidity. He is also a Canadian who hates hockey sticks.
He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

 

[Makalakumu]

Mainly because at the moment this approach is only theory and has not been tested.


:asian:

That's just a matter of priorities, which is really the point I'm making. Why don't the people in charge of the purse strings focus on researching these feasible low cost solutions to global warming? Why do they instead focus on completely reshaping society, instituting a global carbon tax, and creating an overarching global bureaucracy to manage it all?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...xes-proposed-by-the-united-nations-last-week/