Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[MrPlum]

I would be very interested to know what constitutes a genuine scientist!

According to Wiki, 'A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge.' That'll be me, then. I am at this very moment applying to the 'Society of Truthseekers' for a grant.

How is the layman to know? Perhaps a truly independent scientist is one where his 'evidence' is incontrovertible, who does not benefit from finding the 'wrong' answer, and who is not pressured by corporations, government, his peers or representative bodies, to fall into line. He is also required to be a specialist in his particular field. How many scientists, then, are true climatologists?

The ethics of the scientists are also important. There are many examples where 'genuine scientists' have produced allegedly fraudulent science, or put their names to it. Decades ago, doctors declared that smoking was 'good for the brain'. Since then, there has been AIDS, Water fluoridation, 'Swine Flu' (this one has had several re-runs) , Hole in the Ozone Layer, anthropogenic global warming, 'blockbuster' drugs, such as Vioxx, the high cholesterol theory, health 'breakthroughs', mercury in fillings and vaccines, chemotherapy, and many more. I list them not to start an argument (believe whatever you believe) but because the 'science' behind them is disputed. The scientists in some cases may have been genuine but you can be sincerely genuine, and sincerely wrong.

Just want to mention the so-called 'consensus', regarding global warming. It's impossible, for all of those 'scientists' polled, to verify that what they are told, or read, is sound, unless they have seen the data and tested it for themselves. Therefore, they are merely reflecting a BELIEF. Unless my logic is faulty, faith or belief has NO place in science. Faith is RELIGION and I know how scathing MrS is about religion.

Likewise with the 'consensus'... among Economic 'scientists'... to NOT mention that the debt-based, usurious money system we have, is basically a counterfeiting operation. There is a consensus on financial metrics, they point to their charts, discuss the 'business cycle', all the while avoiding the elephant in the room... the fiat money system itself.

Marketing companies use polls to determine whether political propaganda is being accepted by the public.. basically whether they are swallowing the lies. They adjust their marketing tactics until the product they are selling.. be it soap, haemorrhoid cream, or anthropogenic global warming, is finally accepted.

Scientists are little different. Instead of some blonde with big boobs draped across a BMW, they are subjected to scientific journals (already got at). Peer review (who chooses the peers?). The assertions of some 'eminent' scientists, whose reputation is 'bulletproof' until you discover he's being given the top job at some research institute and recommended for a Nobel.

The fact that there is a 'consensus', does not mean the science is valid.

Sorry to digress.

If you know of any truly independent climatologists, please provide names.

Journalistic/sensationalized pap in the media is misleading !

In spades.

[Super Joe]

Journalistic/sensationalized pap in the media is misleading !

Of course it can be Charles, so why take much notice of it? With most of the important key issues, like this overwhelming 2008 survey concensus, can all be thoroughly researched by we the plebs, without the need to consult with the biased MSM or the contrived propaganda of the 'alternative media'. Skeptics often refer to these media sources, plus your Al Gore's & co, in order to attempt to 'muddy' the water because they do not want to accept the concensus survey results that came straight from the horses mouth. The survey details is well published and available to us all.

This 2008 survey was carried out in response to criticisms that previous surveys did not involve a more diverse scientific base, so it was sent out to over 10,000 'earth' scientists including many petroleum scientists, and other known climate skeptics, only 5% of respondents were these supposedly 'biased' climate scientists... yet the results were as follows:
.
- 82% of all (ie: a broadbase of earth scientists) agreed that human activity has a 'significant' impact on rising temperatures.
- 89% of the broadbase above who actively publish peer-reviewed research on all subjects agreed it was 'significant'.
- 97% of climate scientists agreed human's contribution is significant.
- There were more 'not sure's' than there was 'no's'
.
To suggest that someone 'got to' those 10,000 scientists from around the world is completely baseless, and just clutching at straws. The university professor who led the survey summed up by saying in the report: 'It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.'


Skeptics can not refute the science, which as Steve G has always said should be quite easy if it's so patently false... even with an army of worldwide 'petroleum geologists' (backed by anti-climate big oil)... and even with the China's 2nd largest scientific community in the world (backed by China who more than anyone would have wanted it to be false). When you consider China, India & Russia, and their armies of scientists, have not found it false despite national interests being served if it was false... then this puts any biased reporting in the media into perspective.
China, India & Russia all recently signed a declaration saying... "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

These scientific organizations endorse the position that 'most global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities':

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society, Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
British Antarctic Survey
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

That's a heck of a lot of bribing, and tens of thousands of people to keep quiet in this particular conspiracy. More than 9/11 probably, arf arf.


SJ

[charlesh]

Just by way of a personal recollection - some 40 years ago when I started out in Chemistry my mate went to work for a large government department and was tasked with the job at looking at various inorganic and other species in sea water. His results at the time for several inorganic contaminants were indicative of a build up of man made effluents. His boss ordered him to change the results (lower them). My mate resigned several months later!
and SJ I'm not sure that there are (at the risk of starting a numbers game) really 10,000 scientists around the world working on the same hypothesis. No doubt there is a lot of convenient synchronicity associated with studies and PS OFTEN studies are designed to reinforce earlier ones ie: accepted as true.
Have a read of "the Apocolyptics" to get a handle on statistic relevance!
You will note the use of the words "mainly caused" & "most likely". Would that be enough in dare I say a court of law!

[STEVE G]

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... e-sceptics

[sargeant]

I heard on BBC news today a survey by Berkley somfin or other have been measuring the earths surface and it shows the ground is warming

The kicker for me was this mob were apparrently paid for by the sceptics

[STEVE G]

SUMMIT COUNTY — Simultaneous warming in the southern and northern hemispheres hasn’t occurred in at least 20,000 years, and possibly longer, according to a Swedish researcher who says his findings refute one of the more common arguments against global warming.

“What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective,” said Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University.

Björck directly addressed the argument that climate has always changed in cycles by showing that, in the past, when when, for example, the temperature rises in one hemisphere, it falls or remains unchanged in the other.

“My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level,” says Svante Björck.
To make his findings, Björck examined global climate archives, searching for evidence that any of the climate events that have occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago generated similar effects on both the northern and southern hemispheres simultaneously.

He used the Little Ice Age as an example, explaining that, while Europe experienced some of its coldest centuries, there is no evidence of corresponding simultaneous temperature changes and effects in the southern hemisphere.

Climate records, in the form of core samples taken from marine and lake sediments and glacier ice, serve as a record of how temperature, precipitation and concentration of atmospheric gases and particles have varied over the course of history, and are full of similar examples.

Instead it is during ‘calmer’ climatic periods, when the climate system is influenced by external processes, that the researchers can see that the climate signals in the archives show similar trends in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

“This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe. In these cases we can see similar effects around the world simultaneously”, says Svante Björck.

Björck draws parallels to today’s situation. The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently changing very rapidly. At the same time, global warming is occurring.

“As long as we don’t find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today’s global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth’s carbon cycle,” Björck said.

“This is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system.”
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/10/22 ... edecented/

[STEVE G]

(Reuters) - Rapidly growing megacities in Africa and Asia face the highest risks from rising sea levels, floods and other climate change impacts, says a global survey aimed at guiding city planners and investors.

The study by risk analysis and mapping firm Maplecroft, released on Wednesday, comes as the United Nations says the world's population will hit seven billion next week and as huge floods inundate areas of Thailand and the capital Bangkok.

The survey ranks nearly 200 nations in terms of vulnerability to climate change over the medium term.

It also ranks the top-20 fastest-growing cities by 2020 in terms of risk, with the study based on a series of indices. The survey maps the world in 25-square-km segments according to vulnerability, making regional assessments easier.

Haiti is the country most at risk from climate change, while Iceland is the least vulnerable. Thailand is ranked 37th.

Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh, is the megacity most at risk with an "extreme" ranking. Other megacities at extreme or high risk include Manila, Kolkata, Jakarta, Kinshasa, Lagos, Delhi and Guangzhou.

"Population growth in these cities combines with poor government effectiveness, corruption, poverty and other socio-economic factors to increase the risks to residents and business," said Maplecroft.

CONSEQUENCES

"The impacts of this could have far reaching consequences, not only for local populations, but on business, national economies and on the balance sheets of investors around the world, particularly as the economic importance of these nations is set to dramatically increase," Charlie Beldon, Maplecroft's principal environmental analyst, said in a statement.

Maplecroft analyses the exposure of populations to climate related natural hazards and sensitivity of countries in terms of population concentration, development, natural resources, agricultural dependency and conflict. They also rank in terms of a country's, city's or region's ability to adapt.

The maps highlight areas within countries that might be more vulnerable, allowing risks to towns, cities, economic zones and individual company assets to be identified.

For instance, Manila, as the Philippines' commercial center, is extremely vulnerable because of its huge population, rapid growth -- estimated to add another 2.2 million people between 2010 and 2020 -- risk from flooding and storms and the likely increase in these disasters. Rainfall intensity is likely to increase in tropical Asia, climate scientists say.

Highlighting the areas of great risk also offered investment opportunities.

"Changing demands for goods and services can present opportunities for new products or innovative modifications to existing ones," Maplecroft says.

Globally, many other cities were also vulnerable to climate change, Maplecroft said, but better governance, greater wealth and better policies meant they were more able to adapt.

"It is not only cities in the developing world that are at risk from the potential effects of climate change," Beldon told Reuters in an email. "For example, the floods that struck Brisbane (Australia) in early 2011 illustrate the potential of hazards to cause devastation even in a developed country."

Miami still ranked at a high risk as does Singapore, while New York and Sydney were medium and London was a low risk.

Bangkok ranked extreme, and the Thai government has created a $10.6 billion budget to rebuild after the current floods subside.

[MrPlum]

'Disaster Capitalism' marches on.

All these posts confirming warming (hasn't this already been conceded by skeptics?) still only provide us with hypotheses, rather than direct evidence of AGW itself. According to some, a lack of hard evidence means it's all a 'nonsense'. I quite agree.

If you are the type to be impressed by China's 5-year plans and greening of the economy, you had better shut your browser immediately. A dose of reality comes from this National Geographic article on 'Green China'....

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ ... ibben-text

'That green effort, though, is being overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the coal-fueled growth. So for the time being, China's carbon emissions will continue to soar. I talked with dozens of energy experts, and not one of them predicted emissions would peak before 2030. Is there anything that could move that 2030 date significantly forward? I asked one expert in charge of a clean-energy program. "Everyone's looking, and no one is seeing anything," he said.

Even reaching a 2030 peak may depend in part on the rapid adoption of technology for taking carbon dioxide out of the exhaust from coal-fired power plants and parking it underground in played-out mines and wells. No one knows yet if this can be done on the scale required. When I asked one scientist charged with developing such technology to guess, he said that by 2030 China might be sequestering 2 percent of the carbon dioxide its power plants produce.

Which means, given what scientists now predict about the timing of climate change, the greening of China will probably come too late to prevent more dramatic warming, and with it the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the rise of the seas, and the other horrors Chinese climatologists have long feared.

It's a dark picture. Altering it in any real way will require change beyond China—most important, some kind of international agreement that transforms the economics of carbon.'

So the battle to 'save the earth' is already lost and there is precious little sign it can be saved.

Now what?

[STEVE G]

At least the Chinese acknowledge that the problem exists:

China to set regional energy caps

China's efforts to curb its greenhouse gas emissions are poised to take another major step forward, according to reports from the state-backed Xinhua news agency detailing plans to set binding regional caps on energy consumption.

Quoting Jiang Bing, head of the planning department of the National Energy Administration, the news agency reported that the proposals for energy quotas would be released in the near future, although it added that the plans would need approval from China's State Council.

Jiang also signalled that the quotas would only apply to energy derived from fossil fuels with hydro, wind and solar power exempted from the caps.

The Chinese government has previously said it will impose a cap on energy consumption as part of its latest five-year plan, which has set a series of targets designed to enhance energy efficiency and cut the carbon intensity of the country's economy by 17 per cent by 2020. The plan is seen as essential to meeting China's stated goal of cutting its carbon intensity by between 40 per cent and 45 per cent by 2020.

The government has shown a willingness to impose relatively draconian legislation in order to ensure energy targets are met. In 2010, premier Wen Jiabao vowed to use an "iron hand" to ensure energy efficiency targets are met, overseeing a programme of forced closure for many of the country's most inefficient factories.

The proposed energy consumption quotas are the latest in a series of mooted green policy announcements from Beijing designed to curb emissions and accelerate investment in clean technologies.

In the last month alone reports have emerged detailing the government's plans to increase its renewable energy target for 2015, impose a major new resource tax on oil, gas, coal and scarce raw materials, and tighten air pollution standards.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/21 ... nergy-caps

[Homer]

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... e-sceptics

The only thing funnier than left partisan media attempting to explain science is the fools who read it lapping it up.

The problems with this study are:

1. The earth has warmed and cooled without the benefit of human intervention. The quoted study says we're in a warming period. So what? It says nothing about man having caused that warming.

2. There are long, short and variable length cycles in the earth's temperature. Ever heard of the ice ages? If you want to do a biased study, pick a period where the trend matches the conclusion you want. So they picked a period during a warming trend, ignoring the cooling trend that preceded it. Probably justified the period selected because it had reliable data. Problem is, data has to be both reliable AND valid.

3. This quote is a remarkable bit of yogurt brained journalism. I have difficult imagining the authors of the study writing it. Italics from the original:

Climate sceptics have criticised official global warming figures on the grounds that many temperature stations are poor quality and that data are tweaked by hand.

However, the Berkeley study found that the so-called urban heat island effect, which makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas, is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to average land temperature rises.

The urban heat island is a different issue than poorly placed temperature (actually weather) stations. One famous station has been behind a US post office for most of the last century. In the 50s the lawn was replaced with asphalt. In the late 60s a window air conditioner was added with it's exhaust fan pointed at the weather station. Heat island my ass, the station's data are useless.

This is because urban regions make up less than 1% of the Earth's land area. And while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.

You bird brains. The question is not whether the heat islands affect the earth's temperature, it's if they affect the data and the conclusions drawn from it. What percentage of the data is taken from stations located in urban heat islands?

[STEVE G]

The only thing funnier than left partisan media attempting to explain science is the fools who read it lapping it up.......You bird brains. The question is not whether the heat islands affect the earth's temperature, it's if they affect the data and the conclusions drawn from it. What percentage of the data is taken from stations located in urban heat islands?

No valid argument ever requires insults.

[sandman67]

ahhhhh that famliar old refrain.... TIS BUT A SCRATCH!

sound familiar? Read this.....

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... ouldnt.php

Listen Homer....as Sarge and Steve pointed out....but now in my own sarcastic style...

When Randolph and Mortimer Duke aka The Koch brothers, set up and fund a scientific unit staffed by Koch Whore drones with the intent of supporting the phony "Climategate" canard, and they FAIL, instead mirroring the findings of the two previous scientific studies by NOAA and NASA, thus confirmng the previous findings, it reduces your protests to the argumental equvalent of Cartman's "Screw you guys...Im going home!"....particularly when your protests require the usual ad hominem attacks.

Conversely, I can indulge myself and let the ad hominems fly....and this is why

AggregateClimateRecord.jpg (30.79 KiB) Viewed 886 times

"Moon Volcanos", "Tides go in tides go out","someone has to stand up to these damn experts".....mate, change the channel eh?

Tis But A Scratch!!!!!

[redzonerocker]

When Randolph and Mortimer Duke aka The Koch brothers, set up and fund a scientific unit staffed by Koch Whore drones with the intent of supporting the phony "Climategate" canard, and they FAIL, instead mirroring the findings of the two previous scientific studies by NOAA and NASA, thus confirmng the previous findings, it reduces your protests to the argumental equvalent of Cartman's "Screw you guys...Im going home!"....particularly when your protests require the usual ad hominem attacks.

How could they compare the results & mirror the previous findings?

A lot of the data from the units involved in the climategate affair was lost or misplaced, . . . . . apparently

[MrPlum]

the phony "Climategate" canard

You don't say which part was phony. As a biased klutz I was quite happy to jump on the 'hide the decline' conspiracy theory bandwagon, since no explanation was forthcoming. I don't apologize since proponents of AGW struggle with their own 'conspiracy theories' that all skepticism is being fed by either by 'Big Oil' or 'Big Kochs'.

Commissions, as you know, are excellent at whitewashing the mischief or mistakes of 'authority'. Even so, the Muir Russell Commission report did confirm several accusations.

1. The CRU failed to archive raw data until 2009 meaning their conclusions could not be independently verified.
2. The University failed to respond properly to FOI requests, creating the suspicion of a cover up.
3. They acknowledged that some emails had been deleted.

'27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them.'

'CRU should make available sufficient information, concurrent with any publications, to enable others to replicate their results.'

4. They show confidence in the Peer review process but confirmed it is not a guarantee of scientific validity...

'We believe that peer review is an essential part of the process of judging scientific work, but it should not be overrated as a guarantee of the validity of individual pieces of research'

'On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.'

5. The IPCC was only offering one viewpoint (politically-driven) and it failed to point out statistics were unreliable.

We welcome the IPCC‘s decision to review its processes, and can only stress the importance of capturing the range of viewpoints and reflecting appropriately the statistical uncertainties surrounding the data it assesses.

6. The 'trick' to 'hide the decline' is dealt with here... http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... cline.html

[Homer]

When Randolph and Mortimer Duke aka The Koch brothers, set up and fund a scientific unit staffed by Koch Whore drones with the intent of supporting the phony "Climategate" canard, and they FAIL, instead mirroring the findings of the two previous scientific studies by NOAA and NASA, thus confirmng the previous findings, it reduces your protests to the argumental equvalent of Cartman's "Screw you guys...Im going home!"

It's child's play to make a biased study confirm previously biased studies.

Assuming the study in question is valid, all it does is demonstrate global warming over a short period of time. But that is not the point. The entire reason anybody has their panties in a bunch over GW is the allegation that it's AGW. Anybody who things GW must mean AGW is a bird brain.