Any doubts about Climate Change?

**Boon Mee** · 10-03-2013, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Still no answer as to what is the right temperature for the world yet. A few scare stories, but everyone assumes there are no positives. What a load of bull about starvation by the way - warmer climate and more Co2 equals more food grown. Get the grapes and corn growing in Greenland again - happy days.

Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice packs continue to grow and increased polar bear populations in the Arctic are dining seal ala cart!

**Mid** · 10-03-2013, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice packs continue to grow and increased polar bear populations in the Arctic are dining seal ala cart!

Experts expect global warming to pack more ice onto Antarctica | NJ.com

and

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weathe...rming/1962685/

**Boon Mee** · 10-03-2013, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice packs continue to grow and increased polar bear populations in the Arctic are dining seal ala cart!

Experts expect global warming to pack more ice onto Antarctica | NJ.com
/

Well, guess that's good for the Emperor Penguins. Fewer tourists bothering them...

**Norton** · 10-03-2013, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Still no answer as to what is the right temperature for the world yet.

22.2222 C

**Boon Mee** · 10-03-2013, 08:43 AM

^
Too cold.

**pseudolus** · 10-03-2013, 08:43 AM

Now, I don't want to incur the wrath of the brainwashed brigade here, but in the NJ.com article, they say that the NH ice pack reacts to warmth differently. They do not say why, or how, or offer any evidence, just say that it does (so there!). Now could this have something to do with it?

Oh, and sun activity as well (I bet none of the climate fear believers watch that video though - it;s not about climate fear though, just shows the movement of earth around the sun, it's tipping axel, the movement of the elliptical path of the Earth as well. Fascinating stuff - you might want to pay attention to where our pole is currently pointing.....)

**S Landreth** · 10-03-2013, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

At any rate, global warming is ALL THAT STANDS IN THE PATH OF AN ICE AGE:

"Though the paper is the most complete reconstruction of global temperature, it is roughly consistent with previous work on a regional scale. It suggests that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene.

The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend.

The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.)
Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that."

Don't know about y'all but I'd rather be warm than cold. Anybody want a Fallen Angels, scenario? This is where environmentalists managed to stop the greenhouse emissions and an ice age ensued.

btw, was in Bejing last November and the air quality then wasn't all that bad. Nobody walking around wearing face masks. Reminded this poster of LA back in the 60's where you never saw a blue sky.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

^strange, you left this part of the article out. Why's that?

The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century, Dr. Marcott said.

Dr. Mann pointed out that the early Holocene temperature increase was almost certainly slow, giving plants and creatures time to adjust. But he said the modern spike would probably threaten the survival of many species, in addition to putting severe stresses on human civilization.

“We and other living things can adapt to slower changes,” Dr. Mann said. “It’s the unprecedented speed with which we’re changing the climate that is so worrisome.”

still waiting. Why's that?

**Boon Mee** · 10-03-2013, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

still waiting. Why's that?

No scientific data supports the notion humans cannot adapt 'more readily' than Dr. Mann's opinion this poster is aware of.

**S Landreth** · 10-03-2013, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by S Landreth

still waiting. Why's that?

No scientific data supports the notion humans cannot adapt 'more readily' than Dr. Mann's opinion this poster is aware of.

You don’t get out much/read much on the subject do you? It has been posted before,….

Originally Posted by S Landreth

An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces

In this post, I will summarize what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the coming decades if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. These include:

Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States

Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other regions around the globe that are heavily populated and/or heavily farmed.

Sea level rise of some 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter

Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity.

Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”

Much more extreme weather

Food insecurity — the increasing difficulty of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.

Myriad direct health impacts

Remember, these will all be happening simultaneously and getting worse decade after decade. Equally tragic, a 2009 NOAA-led study found the worst impacts would be “largely irreversible for 1000 years.”

The single biggest failure of messaging by climate scientists (until very recently) has been the failure to explain to the public, opinion makers, and the media that business-as-usual warming results in simultaneous, ever-worsening impacts that, individually, are each beyond catastrophic, but combined are unimaginablly horrific. For these impacts, terms like “global warming” and “climate change” are essentially euphemisms. That is why I have preferred the term “Hell and High Water.”

By virtue of their success in promoting doubt and inaction, the climate science deniers and disinformers have, tragically and ironically, turned the worst-case scenario into business as usual.

and more,.....

Business as usual typically means continuing at recent growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, which we now know would likely take us to atmospheric concentrations of CO2 greater than 850 ppm if not above 1000 ppm (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories are being realised”). Annual emissions now exceed 10 billion metric tons of carbon (~37 billions metric tons of CO2). Emissions have been rising about 3% per year for the past decade.

What is less well understood is that even a very strong mitigation effort that kept carbon emissions this century to 11 billion tons a year on average would still probably take us to 1000 ppm (A1FI scenario) — a little noted conclusion of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (see “Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution“).

Until recently, the scientific community has spent little time modeling the impacts of a tripling (~830 ppm) or quadrupling (~1100 ppm) carbon dioxide concentrations from preindustrial levels. In part, I think, that’s because they never believed humanity would be so self-destructive as to ignore their science-based warnings and simply continue on its unsustainable path. In part, they lowballed the difficult-to-model amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle.

So I pieced together those impacts from available studies and from discussions with leading climate scientists for my 2006 book, Hell and High Water. But now the scientific literature on what we face is much richer — as climate scientists have sobered up to their painful role as modern-day Cassandra’s (see Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization”).

In a 2010 AAAS presentation, the late William R. Freudenburg of UC Santa Barbara discussed his research on “the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge“: New scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,” rather than “not as bad as previously expected.”

This post will review the latest findings. It will serve as a foundation for a multi-part series that attempts to clear up some of the confusion over the supposed high degree of “uncertainty” surrounding climate impacts. That series will make clear that we have an unusually high degree of certainty around future climate impacts if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path.

This post — an update — covers more than 60 recent scientific studies along with numerous review pieces that themselves each cover a large segment of the recent literature. Please add links to more studies in the comments.

We will see why inaction on climate change is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. 4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level),” according to Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain (see here).

TEMPERATURE

Three of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual!
As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre has explained:

… where no action is taken to check the rise in Greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would most likely rise by more than 5°C by the end of the century. This would lead to significant risks of severe and irreversible impacts.

**pseudolus** · 10-03-2013, 05:33 PM

^ “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path"

How do they know it will be catastrophic? Are you telling me there is proof that the world does not operate better at a temp 5 °C higher than we are at? What is the best temperature for us?

It seems that you are now saying the temp will rise by loads every year now, and on the basis that even with zero emissions for 23 years we can only claw back 1°C

Too late. So maybe it is best just to keep people nice and scared as well as introducing a way for bankers to make trillions of dollars during that time, and for billions to be extorted in tax from the people. Great idea.

Oh, and tell me again, what is the correct temperature for the world again? I missed that in your responses.

**Humbert** · 10-03-2013, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, and sun activity as well (I bet none of the climate fear believers watch that video though - it;s not about climate fear though, just shows the movement of earth around the sun, it's tipping axel, the movement of the elliptical path of the Earth as well. Fascinating stuff - you might want to pay attention to where our pole is currently pointing.....)

Startling...

but that's all been factored in to climate change science.

**Humbert** · 10-03-2013, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

How do they know it will be catastrophic? Are you telling me there is proof that the world does not operate better at a temp 5 °C higher than we are at? What is the best temperature for us?

It's about ocean temperatures. When the oceans warm to those levels, massive amounts of water vapor are released into the atmosphere. When this happens hurricane and typhoon activity are predicted to increase dramatically.

**Dead Metal** · 10-03-2013, 06:24 PM

in the great scheme of things we have been here for such a short period of time it will take quite a lot longer to have a true and accurate answer to all our questions.
Personally i am confused by all the conflicting information that keeps flying about.
On the one hand they say that under some ice pack there is huts and use to be green fields etc;?
On the other they say we were under 20' of ice in europe during the ice age

Giant camel fossil found in Arctic

Too many variables for me to get my head around. I do know one thing, day follows night, high-tide is followed by low-tide....with us or without us, time just ticks away, tok-tik, tok-tik and then were just dust, amen

**Dead Metal** · 10-03-2013, 06:32 PM

PS. Last week here in the UK it got up to 14c, wow. Just in time for spring, trees are now in bud, shoots are coming up in the gardens. But alas the joy was short lived as its now bloody wet, cold and windy. Forecast for the coming week - 5c and snow.

Q. is this the beginning of global cooling ?

**hazz** · 10-03-2013, 07:11 PM

It can be quite confusing can't it.. but thats why big oil like exxon are spending 10's millions each year to finance groups that say that we don't need to worry about global warming. because they can artificially create the impression of confusion and lack of consensus, that allows them to use their influence on politicians to avoid any action that might cut oil consumption.

why would these people do that, oil consumption is currently close to world production capacity. if would demand increases we will see the price of oil go through the roof and considerable volitity in the price. good for the oil companies, traders and producing contries..... very bad for the rest of us.
The last thing these people want is the reductions needed to deal with global warming, as if successful they may well reduce the potential peks in future oil prices and cost these chaps much money. The campaign is simply a more polished re run of the cmpaign the tobacco industry waged against those saying that smoking causes cancer and kills some 25% or more of its users. Their small investment delayed public policy for decades, killed many and allowed them to make many 100's of millions in profit at the cost of throwing a few 10's millions per year manufacturing confusion and the impression of a lack of consensus.

To be fooled once by corporate is shame on them, to fall twice is shame on you.

**pseudolus** · 10-03-2013, 08:00 PM

On the oil argument, it does not really add up unless you put a huge amount of spin on it.

Oil is finite. People will pay what ever they have to because there is no choice. If Big Oil ration Oil, they could charge what ever they liked for it, and keep their businesses going longer - 400 bucks a barrel no problem at all, and any taxes are passed to the consumers anyway. Even being told to retro-fit bits of kit to existing facilities would just be passed onto the consumers, so it doesn't cost them anything. In fact, as all Big Oil have huge trading arms as well, they would make a fortune from the carbon credit trading schemes and the like. So, in a nut shell, I don't buy all this "ooooh big oil is up in arms about it". They have the product, and like it or not, people will buy it no matter what the price = the US services is the world biggest consumer of fuel I believe - wonder how many torches, mugs and trinkets they get when they fill up?

10's of millions is the number quoted though. Well let me see. Gore started this all off with 1.6m in the bank. He now has 300m +. I would think his personal earnings could be classed in the 10's of millions each year.

**hazz** · 10-03-2013, 08:22 PM

And this pseudolus is why the "shame on you" well and truly lands on your head and why with the possible exception of boomers, handsoman and a few other fools the only question you are insisting in the rest of us is are you barking mad or just a troll.

If big oil ration oil, what do you mean if. over the last 40 years we have had many instances of oil rationing, some deliberate opec, some natural forces shutting down refinery capacity, some simple capacity exceeding supply.... so we know what happens, and those that own, extract and trade the oil on the whole do very nicely out of it. the rest of us don't do quite so nicely if the oil price shock sends our economies in to recession.

But then, this is of little account to you, as it does not support the answer you wish to prove is right. Thats why we know your a tin foil head, that you will ignore any counter argument put to you and continue to post your bollocks ad nausium, most of us will give up arguing with you out of pointlessness and you will no doubt in your delusional state believe its because of the strength of your arguments.

As I have said to that other nut case fantasist ENT, if you think my assessment of what people think of you is wrong... start a poll and prove me wrong

**Dead Metal** · 10-03-2013, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by hazz

To be fooled once by corporate is shame on them, to fall twice is shame on you.

Yeah, gotchya hazz

at the end of the day it matters not which way we go in our beliefs on the global situation, as responsible citizens its up to us to do all in our power to look after this beautiful rock, we are just "caretakers" for our future generations.

..wish they would stop lopping our trees (forest's) down.

**Boon Mee** · 11-03-2013, 06:23 AM

The Goreacle now says global warming skeptics are like violent alcoholics!

GORE: …of the debates. It’s almost like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage if alcohol is mentioned. And so the rest of the family decides to keep the peace by never discussing the elephant in the middle of the room. And that is what the deniers have attempted to accomplish. Now, I think that Superstorm Sandy will be looked back upon something of a turning point. You saw President Obama’s very inspiring statements in his inaugural address and the State of the Union Address. And I think that’s symptomatic.
I just came from an event in Nassau County on Long Island. And I heard from a great many business leaders there, who said that the conversation has completely changed on Long Island. They were in the bulls-eye when Superstorm Sandy..."

Gore likens skepticism to violent alcoholism | Climate Depot

You would have thought he'd made enough money by now?

**pseudolus** · 11-03-2013, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

And this pseudolus is why the "shame on you" well and truly lands on your head and why with the possible exception of boomers, handsoman and a few other fools the only question you are insisting in the rest of us is are you barking mad or just a troll.

If big oil ration oil, what do you mean if. over the last 40 years we have had many instances of oil rationing, some deliberate opec, some natural forces shutting down refinery capacity, some simple capacity exceeding supply.... so we know what happens, and those that own, extract and trade the oil on the whole do very nicely out of it. the rest of us don't do quite so nicely if the oil price shock sends our economies in to recession.

But then, this is of little account to you, as it does not support the answer you wish to prove is right. Thats why we know your a tin foil head, that you will ignore any counter argument put to you and continue to post your bollocks ad nausium, most of us will give up arguing with you out of pointlessness and you will no doubt in your delusional state believe its because of the strength of your arguments.

As I have said to that other nut case fantasist ENT, if you think my assessment of what people think of you is wrong... start a poll and prove me wrong

So tell me again, what is the best temperature for earth then? No answer to that as usual, although I must say you have the Gore techniques down pat - ignore everything that goes against your fear mongering, and attack and accuse of ignorance everything else.

You seem to believe you have a magical insight into the world that no one else has - of course I know about OPEC you bellend but again in your rush to attack and appear "clever" you miss the point. It makes no difference what anyone does. Big OIl will win and all costs will be past onto the public so why would they bother to fight it? Secondly, they have trading arms which do very well out of trading carbon credits. You really seem to know nothing about the intricacies of what you talk about. Thirdly, the amounts of money they might pump in against it pale into insignificance the amount of money the fear mongers are making from it- again something you brush aside failing to accept they have a massive financial conflict of interest and as such anything they say is biased.

Go back and try again Hazz - your arguments need more work. Try to find primary evidence as opposed to the warped and manipulated guff from Gore Inc.

**cheekyman** · 11-03-2013, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You seem to believe you have a magical insight into the world that no one else has - of course I know about OPEC you bellend but again in your rush to attack and appear "clever" you miss the point.

Are you talking to the mirror again??

Ps is that scary avator your real dial?

**pseudolus** · 11-03-2013, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by cheekyman

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You seem to believe you have a magical insight into the world that no one else has - of course I know about OPEC you bellend but again in your rush to attack and appear "clever" you miss the point.

Are you talking to the mirror again??

Ps is that scary avator your real dial?

No - I am not. Just because my point of view differs to someone else does not mean that either point of views necessarily holds more water than another. The truth is the truth. It does not matter if only one person is saying something and that is disagreed with by the rest of the world, that singular person can still be correct. The amount of people who believe something does not impart truth into it which seems to be the consistent argument from the climate fear lobby "we have paid for 1000% more studies and computer models to back our claim, and have a pop star populist campaign going which focuses hate on anyone who says different to us".

Just because Bono backs something does not make it the truth - in fact, with that criminal, it more often means it is bull. Same as for Gore.

**Humbert** · 11-03-2013, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Just because Bono backs something does not make it the truth - in fact, with that criminal, it more often means it is bull. Same as for Gore.

Pseudo's test for the legitimacy of any argument is based on what he thinks of the person. A total fool.

**pseudolus** · 11-03-2013, 09:18 AM

^ Alas Humbert, you are wrong (you must be getting used to that by now). It is supporting evidence. But feel free to waive the flag for Fear, and sit on a sand castle feeling pious - nothing is being done about it, emissions have gone up by 40% and the reason is that whilst the bankers are happy to profit from climate fear, they know it is all a scam so do not really need to do anything about it.

**Humbert** · 11-03-2013, 09:31 AM

^

Originally Posted by pseudolus

How do they know it will be catastrophic? Are you telling me there is proof that the world does not operate better at a temp 5 °C higher than we are at? What is the best temperature for us?

I guess your definition of 'operating better' includes a massive increase in violent weather and the destruction of huge tracts of coastline. If you think that an increase in temperature is just a measure of how comfortable you feel you are in for a rude awakening.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions