Climate change study had 'significant error': experts (Update)

Jan 19, 2011 by Kerry Sheridan
A farmer works a wheat field. A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

The study was posted Tuesday on EurekAlert, a independent service for reporters set up by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.

But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.

"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.

"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our website and contacted the submitting organization."

Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.

Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

The study cited the UN group's figures for its projections, combined with "the business-as-usual path the world is currently following," said lead author Liliana Hisas of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF), a non-profit group headquartered in Argentina.

But climate scientist Ray Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"

He also noted that study author Hisas was told of the problems in advance of the report's release.

"The author of the study was told by several of us about this error but she said it was too late to change it," said Weymann.

Scientist Scott Mandia forwarded to AFP an email he said he sent to Hisas ahead of publication explaining why her figures did not add up, and noting that it would take "quite a few decades" to reach a warming level of 2.4 degrees Celsius.

"Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today," Mandia wrote.

"To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold."

Mandia described the mishap as an "honest and common mistake," but said the matter would certainly give fuel to skeptics of humans' role in climate change.

"More alarmism," said Mandia. "Don't get me wrong. We are headed to 2.4, it is just not going to happen in 2020."

Many people do not understand the cumulative effect of carbon emissions and how they impact climate change, Mandia said.

"This is something that people don't appreciate. We tied a record in 2010 (for temperature records) globally. That is primarily from the C02 we put in the atmosphere in the 70s and early 80s, and we have been ramping up since then," he said.

"So it is not good. We are seeing the response from a mistake we were making 20 years ago, and we are making bigger mistakes today."

Marshall Hoffman of the public relations firm that issued the report on the UEF's behalf said the group stands by the study.

"Earlier, NASA and NOAA estimated that the global temperature increased one degree from 2005-2010. If this stays on the same path, that will be two degrees by 2015. We see that path increasing more rapidly," Hoffman said, in part, in his explanation.

Asked for comment on Hoffman's response, Mandia told AFP: "He is still confused."

Explore further: New water balance calculation for the Dead Sea

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

Sep 24, 2009

(AP) -- Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update.

Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy

Feb 05, 2010

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

Recommended for you

The geography of the global electronic waste burden

5 hours ago

As local and national governments struggle to deal with ever-growing piles of electronic waste (or "e-waste"), scientists are now refining the picture of just how much there is and where it really ends up. Published in the ...

Eco-pottery product from water treatment sludge

6 hours ago

Sludge is a by-product of water treatment. Sludge is produced during the clarification and filtration process in the water treatment system. It is also produced from the accumulated solids removed from sedimentation ...

Agricultural trade appears unaffected by BC carbon tax

6 hours ago

British Columbia's carbon tax does not appear to have had a measurable impact on international agricultural trade, despite concerns it would greatly reduce the BC industry's competitiveness, according to new analysis commissioned ...

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DocM
3.7 / 5 (28) Jan 19, 2011
"Climate study in error...."
"Climate models overstate...."

etc. etc.

Anyone else hear an echo?

Seriously, isn't it about time these claims be held to the 'extraordinay claims' standard instead of 'because our (hacked up) computer models say so'?
SteveL
4.2 / 5 (26) Jan 19, 2011
"The author of the study was told by several of us about this error but she said it was too late to change it," said Weymann.

You know, this is what is wrong when respected people have an agenda that takes a higher precedence over the truth. "Too late to change it"? Millions if not billions of lives are impacted by this information, not just climate related but socially and economically.

I know denialists (which I tend to lean towards) and belivers are going to jump on this with both feet.. Me? I just want accurate information to be available for policy makers and those of us who want to be able to trust scientists. This kind of irresponsibility casts a dark shadow over climate science making it harder to believe future findings. Please, oh please - always tell the truth to the best of your ability, and when someone's information is knowingly in error, let the public know as soon as possible.

Honesty doesn't have to be complicated. Consider the boy who cried wolf..
axemaster
4 / 5 (27) Jan 19, 2011
Here's the difference between scientists and crackpots.

Scientists make mistakes, but they always strive to learn more and fix those mistakes. They don't stick to a talking point if they discover themselves to be incorrect.

Crackpots make mistakes, but they always strive to conceal those mistakes. They stick to their talking point no matter what, misrepresenting the work of real scientists in order to further their agendas.

Crackpots also talk a lot, seeking to drown out opposing voices through sheer numbers.

Well over 90% of "hard science" scientists consider global warming to be a serious threat. This is not a made-up number. Look it up.

60% of the American public DISbelieves in global warming. I wonder whose fault that is?
GSwift7
4.1 / 5 (17) Jan 19, 2011
Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews


The author of the study was told by several of us about this error but she said it was too late to change it


So she admitted the mistake, right?

The public relations firm that issued the report on the UEF's behalf said the group stands by the study and would issue a statement to that effect


lol
drnimrod
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2011
Shocker...
SteveL
3.6 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2011
Oh, we still have an issue with global climate change, and some of it is human-caused. I am however relieved to note that it isn't the end of the world and that we still have time to logically, reasonably and methodically manage the weaning of ourselves off of coal, oil and natural gas towards more sustainable energy sources without crippling our economies.

I would like to see policies put into place that rationally drive our energy supplies towards sustainability and our energy usage towards reduced consumption. Knee-jerk reactions to the newest sky-is-falling scam of the month are not how I want my social or economic agenda to be driven.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (22) Jan 19, 2011
experts cited numerous errors in its approach


Mandia described the mishap as an "honest and common mistake,"


yep, time to paint over the cracks. Did you see that? We just went from numerous errors to a single, common and honest mistake in just a few lines. That was quick.

I love how more than half the story is about making sure people don't forget that people are the cause of climate change. Gotta make sure the message stays clear.
apex01
2.8 / 5 (22) Jan 19, 2011

Well over 90% of "hard science" scientists consider global warming to be a serious threat. This is not a made-up number. Look it up.

60% of the American public DISbelieves in global warming. I wonder whose fault that is?


Yeah i wound't be surprised if 90% of scientists are environmentalists and never took a supply side economics class or met a payroll in their lives but 60% of the American people have.
lengould100
3.2 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2011
Science working exactly as it is supposed to. An error or a deliberate mis-representation gets published, even if by a scientist, and within days scientists have de-bunked it.

So, you deniers, what was your position again?
axemaster
3.5 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2011
Yeah i wound't be surprised if 90% of scientists are environmentalists...


Most scientists aren't environmentalists - they are pragmatists. You don't have to be an environmentalist to look at the data and conclude that global warming is a big problem. The pragmatic response is to mitigate or eliminate the problem, and the best way of doing that is to reduce CO2 emissions.

...and never took a supply side economics class or met a payroll in their lives but 60% of the American people have.


Yeah, scientists are "elites" right? They clearly don't have the math training to understand basic economics, since science doesn't use any math at all... And of course, they don't have to work for a living, because money just falls out of the sky for them to pick up...

Gotta love anti-intellectualism.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (20) Jan 19, 2011
You don't have to be an environmentalist to look at the data and conclude that global warming is a big problem


Is it a problem if it makes things better in some places and worse in others? Can you actually say with certainty that there will be more harm than good?

I support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and become less dependent on foreign energy. I also support developement of more efficient technology. I also think it's a great thing to stop polluting. However, I don't feel that way due to FEAR.

You are correct to criticize the previous comment's economic stupidity, so I'm giving you 5/5 for that. Anybody with a clue about economics can see that many of the things which could help us 'solve the carbon problem' (real or not), will also have economic advantages. Cheaper, renewable energy, more efficient cars, computers and air contidioners, etc. That all helps people save money and makes everything from food to space ships cheaper.
Yellowdart
4.1 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2011
But climate scientist Ray Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"


It would be nice if the article explained what the difference is.

Moebius
2.2 / 5 (19) Jan 19, 2011
This is a shame, more blank ammo for the climate change skeptic nuts (they'll think it's high velocity 50 caliber explosive tip).
ECOnservative
4.3 / 5 (18) Jan 19, 2011
Science without healthy skepticism is just another religion. It's great that this error was exposed so quickly, but disturbing that they 'stand by the study'.

Either it's right and you stand by it or it's wrong and you fix or withdraw it. Can't have it both ways.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (67) Jan 19, 2011
The entire 'money shot' of the study is to make predictions, yet that is the thing that is so obviously wrong that it even makes other climate scientists nervous.

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks it possible to make predictions of a few degrees per decade is an idiot,.. much less per century.
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 19, 2011
I'm sorry but anyone who thinks it possible to make predictions of a few degrees per decade is an idiot,.. much less per centu


Oh come on, they can make lots of predictions and they will be right. That's the magic trick here. There are so many predictions, that one of them is bound to be right. lol. There's at least a 50/50 chance of them being right about the warming thing right from the start, without doing any research at all. I mean it's either going to warm or cool, since climate never stays the same, so they have a 1 of 2 chance of being correct about it. That's not bad for a start. All you need is a little bit of eveidence leaning one way or the other, and you can say things like "warming is likely in the next 100 years".
StillWind
2.7 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2011
This just gets better and better. AGW Theory is clearly propaganda, and the science is clear on this. As for "anti-intellectualism", that is the province of anyone who believes that there is only "2 sides" to the paradigm.
Simple physics disproves AGW Theory. No real dispute there. So, you have to wonder why all these trolls continue to support something that is clearly "anti-intellectual".
CSharpner
4.3 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2011
This is a shame, more blank ammo for the climate change skeptic nuts (they'll think it's high velocity 50 caliber explosive tip).
Yep, be sure to attack healthy scientific skepticism. Can't let another error in the AGW reports go public without making sure to bash everyone that might actually consider the effects of flawed reports.
sstritt
3.9 / 5 (17) Jan 19, 2011
I'm sorry but anyone who thinks it possible to make predictions of a few degrees per decade is an idiot,.. much less per century.

Probably not possible, but certainly profitable.
lengould100
2.6 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2011
Simple physics disproves AGW Theory. No real dispute there.
Your physics is perhaps way too simple? Maybe actually studying some physics would assist you there.
alq131
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2011
Who's to say what the ramifications of climate change would be?

Imagine we were transported to 12000 years ago and had evidence of warming...would we fight it? People could have made the argument that losing the Ice Age would be the worst thing for the world...no more ice covered Europe and N. America, no more Bering Land Bridge, Sea levels would go up magnitudes more than anything we're talking about now.

But look at the "benefits": The American Breadbasket, Europe, Higher sea levels (meaning more shallow continental shelf for marine wildlife) etc.
Should we have stopped it?
Should we restore it?
What if a study came out that said Global Warming in the next 200 years will cause America to turn to a dust bowl and Canada and Saharan Africa to be the new "Fertile Valleys"...wouldn't there be some support of that? It really is just about people trying to hold onto what they have...which is moot anyway when the asteroid hits.
Parsec
3.4 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2011

Well over 90% of "hard science" scientists consider global warming to be a serious threat. This is not a made-up number. Look it up.

60% of the American public DISbelieves in global warming. I wonder whose fault that is?


Yeah i wound't be surprised if 90% of scientists are environmentalists and never took a supply side economics class or met a payroll in their lives but 60% of the American people have.

What does meeting a payroll or economics have to do with climate warming data? It may mean that you don't want to hear, but thats your problem.
axemaster
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2011
Yep, be sure to attack healthy scientific skepticism. Can't let another error in the AGW reports go public without making sure to bash everyone that might actually consider the effects of flawed reports.

You aren't demonstrating "healthy scientific skepticism". You're demonstrating "Hurr, I don't get it, I don't like it, it ain't true!"
Imagine we were transported to 12000 years ago and had evidence of warming...would we fight it? People could have made the argument that losing the Ice Age would be the worst thing for the world...no more ice covered Europe and N. America, no more Bering Land Bridge, Sea levels would go up magnitudes more than anything we're talking about now.

Yeah, but life sucked back then. The climate right now is really great, there's no reason to want it to change. You can't compare them at all.
Simple physics disproves AGW Theory. No real dispute there.

Not sure what I can even say to something as dumb as this...
axemaster
3 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2011
I think it's indicative of the silliness of this "debate" that the sides are so mismatched. Only the fact that most people are either dumb or uneducated allows it to continue... which is terribly depressing for those of us watching it happen.

Scientists are backed up by ENORMOUS amounts of empirical data and decades of experience when they warn the world that this needs to be dealt with. And most of them genuinely care about the future state of the world.

The deniers on the other hand have nothing but speculation. And political/industry backing (i.e. anti-regulation interests). And so-called Climategate... i.e. things they make up / lie about. They're to climate research as what maddened parents are to vaccinations - they've been proven wrong, but they simply won't shut up!
axemaster
3.4 / 5 (20) Jan 19, 2011
Why not get educated? Take a REAL college course. Challenge the professor. Do SOMETHING other than just beating your gorilla chests and screwing up the entire world for generations to come!

Also, I'll remind you that global warming isn't the only problem caused by CO2 emissions. Ocean acidification is also happening RIGHT NOW and promises to be perhaps an even bigger disaster than global warming itself. CO2 reductions, massive ones, are the only option to prevent this.

I'm in grad school, working on a physics Ph.D. I have friends who are working on this stuff directly, and they are incredibly worried and increasingly frustrated that no serious action is being taken. They are very honest, competent people. Accusing them of being in some conspiracy to make money is just... hateful.
Doug_Huffman
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2011
Crackpots also talk a lot, seeking to drown out opposing voices through sheer numbers.

Well over 90% of "hard science" scientists consider global warming to be a serious threat. This is not a made-up number. Look it up.
Science is about falsification and not consensus of "sheer numbers" of "opposing voices" as 90% of "scientists" believe.

Scientist is not an earned or defended title. One using it to claim authority is lying to the gullible. All us Anony Mice got Ph.D.
jsa09
3.1 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2011
You gota love public relations.
"Earlier, NASA and NOAA estimated that the global temperature increased one degree from 2005-2010. If this stays on the same path, that will be two degrees by 2015. We see that path increasing more rapidly," Hoffman said, in part, in his explanation.


what this bloke is saying is 1 degree from 2005-2010 2 degrees by 2015 3 degrees by 2020 and so on. But with increasing production of CO2 on a logarithmic scale as the world develops there is no way it would be a straight line increase.

More like 1 degree 2000-2010 4 degrees by 2020 8 degrees by 2030 16 degrees by 2040.

Wow you gotta love it.

or is it really 1 degree from 1970 - 2000 2 degrees by 2030 4 degrees by 2060?

bbd
4 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2011
Only the fact that most people are either dumb or uneducated allows it to continue...

A very valid observation if you emphasize the word "or". There are many people that are educated that are still dumb. Likewise there are many people that are uneducated that are anything but dumb. Believing that "uneducated" and "dumb" are synonyms would tend to place the believer in the latter category.
eachus
3.2 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2011
You don't have to be an environmentalist to look at the data and conclude that global warming is a big problem. The pragmatic response is to mitigate or eliminate the problem, and the best way of doing that is to reduce CO2 emissions.


Just for the record, I'm a statistician, and I think that the data linking higher CO2 levels to shorter lifespans for humans is real. But when it comes to global warming, you just made two statements of fact, and one that has no relation to reality as a conclusion. Is global warming real? Sure. Is it a serious problem? For some people, yes. I live in New Hampshire, but I am not willing to tell everyone in Florida to learn to scuba dive, and live on boats.

But there is no evidence that reducing CO2 levels would reverse global warming, even if possible. CO2 levels seem to interact with clouds in a way that mitigates any serious effect on global temperatures.
rwinners
2.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2011
Actually, the accepted 'error' range for the future widens with time. We should all hope that reality is on the lower limits of the channel.

But I don't think so...
omatumr
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2011
The climate scandal seems to be making some powerful organizations nervous.

See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun"
Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131
arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
ted208
3.2 / 5 (18) Jan 19, 2011
The AGW gloomsday project continues to be widely acclaimed by select group of AGW academics and professionals who have a financial stake in the continuation of phony temperature data, crappy modeling (garbage in = garbage out) and the scare mongering climate change hoax that is starting to backfire and fall flat on it's face. The truth is out so called climatologist, social(ist) engineers, the UN and professional doomsayers are proven wrong EVERY TIME! They fudge data & have no valid science or ability to forecast 6 months away never mind 90 years.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011

Well over 90% of "hard science" scientists consider global warming to be a serious threat. This is not a made-up number. Look it up.

60% of the American public DISbelieves in global warming. I wonder whose fault that is?


Yeah i wound't be surprised if 90% of scientists are environmentalists and never took a supply side economics class or met a payroll in their lives but 60% of the American people have.


Apparently you have no experience working with "soft" funding, then.

Caliban
3 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
Oh come on, they can make lots of predictions and they will be right. That's the magic trick here. There are so many predictions, that one of them is bound to be right. lol. There's at least a 50/50 chance of them being right about the warming thing right from the start, without doing any research at all.[...] That's not bad for a start. All you need is a little bit of eveidence leaning one way or the other, and you can say things like "warming is likely in the next 100 years".


G(and others who share this viewpoint),
It is the express purpose of much of science to make the very best predictions that available data, modeling, and thought can produce.

Bad science, quickly debunked.

If things go the "predicted" way, 30 years from now, you'll be crying why wasn't more done sooner?

Do you want to take the wager so smugly proposed in the comment above?

In the mean time, we still need to get off this fossil-fuel based world economy.
ubavontuba
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2011
The climate scandal seems to be making some powerful organizations nervous.

See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun"
Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131
arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Your paper is interesting. And, though there is much which needs further discussion, I can say I definitely like your writing style and your denunciation on the politicalization of the IPCC.

donjoe0
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
"Is global warming real? Sure. Is it a serious problem? For some people, yes."
Yeah, I find it very telling that the AGW crowd can't provide any conclusive proof that human quality of life has decreased on average, globally, because of the global climate evolution over the past century. Yet they keep pushing their political carbophobic agenda and repeatedly bashing us over the head with the idea that the warming is bad for us (conveniently always citing only _regional_ disasters that prove nothing about the global situation; but, of course, when we cite _regional_ cooling, we're the ignoramuses who don't get the difference between weather and climate; gotta love that con artist trickery).
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 20, 2011
gotta love that con artist trickery
And don't forget the big switcheroo too. It's not "Global Warming" anymore, it's "Climate Change." That way, they're only wrong if nothing happens, and climate is ALWAYS variable.
Caliban
2.9 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2011
gotta love that con artist trickery
And don't forget the big switcheroo too. It's not "Global Warming" anymore, it's "Climate Change." That way, they're only wrong if nothing happens, and climate is ALWAYS variable.


Either way -Global Warming or Climate Change- the evidence continues to mount, despite your displays of delusional cynicism.

What will you do when the Sea comes back?
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011

If things go the "predicted" way, 30 years from now, you'll be crying why wasn't more done sooner?


Or could you be crying because you live in a global dictatorship which used "climate change" as its justification? See below:

"According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are "the barbarians" with a "fossil-money- 'democracy' that now rules the roost," making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change."

"The nation's most prominent publicly funded climatologist is officially angry about this, blaming democracy and citing the Chinese government as the "best hope" to save the world from global warming. He also wants an economic boycott of the U.S. sufficient to bend us to China's will."

-Washington Times: "China-style dictatorship of climatologists"

Should we give up our way of life for uncertain science?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Jan 20, 2011
In the mean time, we still need to get off this fossil-fuel based world economy.

What naive school girls, bed wetters, and tree-huggers, will never understand is that you can't just "get off this fossil-fuel based world economy". A) any artificial ad-hoc such manipulation or button pushing social economic engineering on a global scale could have unintended consequences and end up causing more deaths than AGW supposedly would. B) In any case it would take generations to do this as there are no alternatives on the scale necessary, ready and in place.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (59) Jan 20, 2011
It is the express purpose of much of science to make the very best predictions that available data, modeling, and thought can produce.

Bad science, quickly debunked.
This is a false premise. Bad science can't even be wrong. AGW has never been in a position to verify their conclusions by making predictions successfully.

If things go the "predicted" way, 30 years from now, you'll be crying why wasn't more done sooner?
If things Went the predicted way of 30 years ago it would be global cooling now.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (61) Jan 20, 2011
Should we give up our way of life for uncertain science?
No, we should 'go down with the ship' rather than falling for this scam. Fundamentally, AGW IS about form of government,.. moving away from free market capitalism and to a 'liberal progressive' one world social engineering form of government. This is the nirvana of the PETA'esque school girl mentality, and their comically naive view of the world.

This is not to say that AGW is a conspiracy. It would have never seen the light and put on stage ha it not been for the progressive left, another fact.
omatumr
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2011
The climate scandal seems to be making some powerful organizations nervous.

See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun"
Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131
arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Your paper is interesting. And, though there is much which needs further discussion, I can say I definitely like your writing style and your denunciation on the politicalization of the IPCC.



Thank you for your kindness.

Climategate is but the tip of an iceberg.

If it melts, decades of hiding and manipulation of data will be exposed.

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion",
MPS 33 (1998) A97
Google for link or write me
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011
Either way -Global Warming or Climate Change- the evidence continues to mount, despite your displays of delusional cynicism.
Personally, I'm hoping for Global Warming, as it'll make the world much nicer to live in. I mean, it'd be like hanging out in the Caribbean just about everywhere, right?
What will you do when the Sea comes back?
I hadn't noticed it had left. I swear, I saw it just the other day. It waved at me, I waved back, we exchanged a look...
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Either way -Global Warming or Climate Change- the evidence continues to mount, despite your displays of delusional cynicism.
Personally, I'm hoping for Global Warming, as it'll make the world much nicer to live in. I mean, it'd be like hanging out in the Caribbean just about everywhere, right?
What will you do when the Sea comes back?
I hadn't noticed it had left. I swear, I saw it just the other day. It waved at me, I waved back, we exchanged a look...


That's nice.

geokstr
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 20, 2011
[And don't forget the big switcheroo too. It's not "Global Warming" anymore, it's "Climate Change." That way, they're only wrong if nothing happens, and climate is ALWAYS variable.

Dude, "Climate Change" is, like, you know, so last Tuesday. It's already semantically progressed from there through "Global Climate Disruption" to "Climate Chaos".

Note how "Global Warming" got them to at least commit to one direction. But then see how the last three names are absolutely meaningless and allow them to be right no matter what happen to the "climate" and the temp and storm frequency and pretty much any "findings" from any of their "research" - up, down, no change, oscillating change, all are covered now.

Since it means everything, literally, and predicts everything, literally, it cannot be falsified. Perhaps the new name for the movement should be "Church of the Everlasting Grant".
Kingsix
5 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
Personally I blame the Decepticons
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
Bad science, quickly debunked


I gave your comment 5/5 because it is well thought out and clearly expresses the views of so many people. I do not agree though.

In complicated scientific matters it can take decades or even centuries before we sometimes discover that what we believed has been wrong or incomplete. I wouldn't use the words 'bad science' though. Just because the conclusions aren't completely accurate, the science doesn't have to be bad. My issue with climate science isn't that I think people are frauds. My problem is that while certain parts are very good, there are so many other parts that are still uncertain. Some of those uncertain parts are very important. That probably explains most of the errors we see in climate predictions up to now. While they are doing the best they can, it's still not very good. You won't see anyone refute it because it is good science and it is the best they can do, but climate science is a young field; it needs more time to grow.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2011
This is not to say that AGW is a conspiracy. It would have never seen the light and put on stage ha it not been for the progressive left, another fact.


I am in agreement with you up to the conspiracy part. Also about the left (who are just tools.) It seems there IS a conspiracy, and it seems to come from those who want to form a world dictatorship, and they are not the leftists, but rather, in my opinion; the elites, aristocrats, royalists, whatever you wish to call them, who have been working hard behind the scenes to get their own back since the French revolution.

Just my opinion, but there does seem to be a big push on for forming a world "government" which is not democratic in nature. And the likes of James Hanson who think China is a model for the rest of us to follow is indicative of how AGW is just part of the plan.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011
but climate science is a young field; it needs more time to grow.


So let's let it mature into reliable, certain science. Then maybe some intelligent decisions can be made. With James Hanson stating publicly that democracy is an obstacle to implementing policies to reduce carbon emissions and that we should rely on Chinese dictators to force carbon reduction policies down unwilling throats it is obvious that there is more to this than just science.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
I'm sure someone will say that people have been studying the climate for a thousand years, and that could be true in a broad way, but we've only really had the right tools to 'see' the climate in the past few decades. In some areas we still don't have the tools we really need. If you look at any of the best climate models, there are parts that contain what they call parameterizations. Each place where they use a parameterization represents a missing tool, whether it's a lack of computer power to do the number crunching, or maybe the lack of a good mathematical model to describe a physical effect or in the worst case it can be something they just aren't sure about. One reason for the difficulty is that we just don't know how to test some of the theories, and another reason is that so many of the theories overlap and blend with others. Climate theory is after all really a collection of many other theories which all have to come together to form the full picture. It's unlikely to be 100%.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2011
Understood. So how complete does our understanding have to be before we leap off the cliff? 80%?

The point is, this area of science is still uncertain and should not be relied on for making devastating policy decisions.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
Just my opinion, but there does seem to be a big push on for forming a world "government" which is not democratic in nature


See: UN Agenda 21

People may argue over your wording, especially the 'democratic' part, but you have it right for the most part.
Claudius
3 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2011
People may argue over your wording, especially the 'democratic' part, but you have it right for the most part.


I was using democratic loosely, which is inaccurate, I know. I prefer a form of representative government which guarantees individual rights. Something that unfortunately does not seem to exist anymore, no matter where you look.

The thing is, if you really needed to get an unpopular agenda put in place, a regional democratic republic is not going to get it done. So James Hansen is right, "democracy" IS an obstacle, and a global authoritarian government would be the way to get things done in a hurry. But is it worth it? And should we do it even if the science is so controversial and uncertain?

Time to take a good look before we leap. Carbon and global temperatures were enormously higher in the distant past and life not only survived but flourished in those eras.
MorganW
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
I don't know if Climate Chaos or Global Warming or Dramatic Climate Change is occuring or not; my problem is with the religious fervor that both sides seem to be taking. It was always my understanding that Science begins with a hypothesis, constructs a theory and then conducts experiments in order to DISPROVE it. For some reason, for this particular theory, the supporters have taken a page right out of religious paradigms and is attempting to PROVE their theory.
Meanwhile, the opposing crowd has taken the approach of "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Do you get the feeling that maybe TPTB are just trying to distract us from the real problem (whatever that is)?
Claudius
3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011
If Einstein's predictions had been as far off as the AGW models, relativity would have been discarded long ago.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2011
So how complete does our understanding have to be before we leap off the cliff? 80%?


lol. That's a loaded question if I ever saw one. I could answer that in a 1000 different ways, depending on what direction I want to take the conversation. The question itself could be taken to mean so many things.

I'll stick to what I know best. I'm a problem solving guy (LEAN Manufacturing), so I deal with continuous improvement, data-driven performance and culture change on a daily basis. There's a tool I use where you graph ideas with cost on one axis and benefit on the other axis. The low hanging fruit is the stuff that has lowest cost and highest benefit. That's what you go for first. In the face of unclear data, you mitigate your risks by sticking to that corner of the graph. As data gets better, and you gain confidence, you start to move farther towards the center of the graph. Only when the data is VERY sure do you move all the way to the far corner of the graph.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
Only when the data is VERY sure do you move all the way to the far corner of the graph.


My point exactly.

GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
Yep. That's just basic logic and problem solving, and the graph helps to remove the emotional biases that can distort decision making.

When you see people trying to force extremely expensive cap and trade schemes on us, when most of the experts agree that it will have an almost undetectable result, I just sit and scratch my head. I never can figure out how those people make decisions. They always talk about "but the risk of doing nothing could be the end of life as we know it". That's utter stupidity, as illustrated by the way the above study was withdrawn due to excessive alarmism. People just don't get it.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2011
While your perspective comes from LEAN manufacturing, mine comes from health care, where the wrong decision can involve more than just loss of efficiency. So I have a similar reaction of disbelief when people seriously advocate enormous changes based on an inexact science that can best be described as having its origins in politics (Margaret Thatcher, et al.)

The bit about the risk of doing nothing reminds me of Pascal's Wager. It is better to believe in God, even if it makes no sense, because the risk of being wrong could have you in a lake of molten sulfur for the rest of eternity.
JP62
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Scroll down to "Other News" and you see yet another study "UN: 2010 tied for warmest on record". Over 6 billion people and industry, every single day, are releasing more CO2 than natural systems can mitigate, causing the greenhouse effect.

But my biggest issue with climate change is how the issue has taken the attention and focus off industrial pollution.

Climate-change deniers should realize that while the overwhelming amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is, and will be the cause for near-and-long-term climate change, the industries that are fighting any kind of carbon legislation are also releasing ungodly amounts of other chemicals and toxins into our environment. Enforcing stricter industry pollution standards will not only reduce carbon emissions, but toxins as well. Read: "Study Finds Pregnant Women's Bodies Full of Chemicals", which came out yesterday as one example.
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2011
I share your concern about pollution. I don't agree that CO2 is a cause for concern, as it is necessary for life.

If you are concerned about pollution, you should be furious about China, which has no requirement to reduce carbon emissions and is building two coal fired power plants every week. Something that James Hansen admires, along with brutal authoritarianism, according to his own recent statement.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2011
Climate-change deniers should realize that while the overwhelming amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is, and will be the cause for near-and-long-term climate change, the industries that are fighting any kind of carbon legislation are also releasing ungodly amounts of other chemicals and toxins into our environment. Enforcing stricter industry pollution standards will not only reduce carbon emissions, but toxins as well.


Logically you are correct. The point that has been made in several recent articles is that greenhouse warming from CO2 is long term. If we stop all excessive CO2 generation now the temperatures of today should be roughly the same 1000 year into future. But if we ignore the warnings, we really will see some a pretty desperate human conditions in the future. That may require strong regulation.

The global problem is we have a desperate need for energy too.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2011
Thank you for your kindness.

Climategate is but the tip of an iceberg.

If it melts, decades of hiding and manipulation of data will be exposed.

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion",
MPS 33 (1998) A97
Google for link or write me
I found it. It's interesting.

I guess the powers that be removed your e-mail address before I could view it, so I sent you a PM.

Anyway, data manipulation certainly has become apparent in climatology. I hope not so much in astrophysics.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2011
Dude, "Climate Change" is, like, you know, so last Tuesday. It's already semantically progressed from there through "Global Climate Disruption" to "Climate Chaos".
LOL!

Let's apply a logic tree to the phrase, "Climate Chaos."

Climate is a word used to describe average weather conditions in a region, or even a world.

The climate averages are derived from weather conditions, measured over time.

Chaos means disorder.

"Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather."*

Therefore "Climate Chaos" is an oxymoron meaning the Climate is weather-like, rather than an average condition.

Therefore, this implies climatologists are using too short a time frame to measure averages for properly determining climate.

Therefore, "Climate Chaos" simply means, weather.

So it boils down to: They're suggesting the weather is caused by CO2 emissions.

Uh, didn't we always have weather?

*http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2011
It has been flourishing in the space science community since 1976.

See the historical review in the new paper in press, "Neutron Repulsion," in The APEIRON Journal. See: ----:db.tt/9SrfTiZ
MorganW
2 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2011
I can't verify this, but maybe someone else can: I'd heard that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo some years back released more CO2 than man has produced since the Industrial Age began. IF that's true, what can we do to reduce it and would it even help (assuming the next eruption would wipe out any gains we'd made)? I definitely believe we should try to reduce ALL pollutants, but I just don't know how realistic it is to completely eliminate it. It IS necessary for life after all and only amounts to ~.02% of our entire atmosphere...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Is it a problem if it makes things better in some places and worse in others? Can you actually say with certainty that there will be more harm than good?
The lesser evil fallacy. Problem is when you can't quantify either one, you can't offer this as an argument.

Morgan, if that was true, you'd see a spike in the Mauna Loa record. That's an internet myth.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas. So the global effect of a volcano is not going to be seen until the CO2 is uplifted high enough to become an atmospheric greenhouse gas. Volcanoes are a constant background component of global CO2 though.

Its very important to acknowledge that it is long term source of historic CO2.
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2011
Heheh! Told you this was coming! Said so in another thread months ago. :)

Any study based upon IPCC data is going to contain errors of fact as well as exaggeration factors. People will find yet more errors if people look for them and factcheck the reports line by line.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2011
The lesser evil fallacy. Problem is when you can't quantify either one, you can't offer this as an argument.

Morgan, if that was true, you'd see a spike in the Mauna Loa record. That's an internet myth.
As I've shown (with references) numerous times, a warmer wold has historically been a more hospitable world.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2011
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas. So the global effect of a volcano is not going to be seen until the CO2 is uplifted high enough to become an atmospheric greenhouse gas. Volcanoes are a constant background component of global CO2 though.

Its very important to acknowledge that it is long term source of historic CO2.
You apparently don't know how volcanoes work. They generally don't blow horizontally.
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2011
Morgan, if that was true, you'd see a spike in the Mauna Loa record.


Not necessarily yet. Mauna Loa is surrounded by a large ocean that absorbs CO2. How much lag time between events and rises in CO2 exists have been and are hotly disputed. Until we know for sure we cannot know that for a certainty.

It all will depend upon how much of that spike was absorbed by carbon sinks before it mixes enough with the atmosphere to make a difference.

Well, there is that and the smoothing, averaging and standardization that is done with the data before it goes public. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2011
Morgan, if that was true, you'd see a spike in the Mauna Loa record.
Not necessarily yet. Mauna Loa is surrounded by a large ocean that absorbs CO2. How much lag time between events and rises in CO2 exists have been and are hotly disputed. Until we know for sure we cannot know that for a certainty.
If Mt. Pinatubo emitted more CO2 in a single eruption than man has emitted since the late 1800's, you'd see it. It would show up and there would be absolutely no question about it.
As I've shown (with references) numerous times, a warmer wold has historically been a more hospitable
No, you've said it, over and over and over.

What's that old cannard about repeating something until it's true?
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2011
If Mt. Pinatubo emitted more CO2 in a single eruption than man has emitted since the late 1800's, you'd see it. It would show up and there would be absolutely no question about it.


I have read it reported that it rained heavily during and after the eruption. CO2 dissolves easily into water. So, again, not necessarily.

The key question is, "How much CO2 was emitted by Pinatubo?" How much really is unknown. Model-based calculations are interesting but do not give us hard numbers. Some of these model-based calculations give us somewhere between 42 megatons of CO2 and over 240 megatons in the initial blast and pre-eruption emissions. But, again, these are model-based calculations based on experimentation in the lab.

I don't think we can quantify it until we get better data than model-based experimentation. Until we get some really good data on volcanic emissions I'll have to sit on the fence on this one.

Of course, if we stick only to pre-eruption data, man emitted more.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2011
The key question is, "How much CO2 was emitted by Pinatubo?" How much really is unknown.
Well that's a really erroneous statement from you. If precipitation pulled all the CO22 out of the air from an eruption that allegedly was "greater than all human emissions since the beginning of the industrial age, then we should see a massive downswing in the ML every time there's a significant period of ACE activity in the pacific basin.

We do not see any such swing in any instrumental record, anywhere in the world. Secondly, the highest modeled output for Pinatubo was 42 million tons of CO2. Industrial emission alone cranks out 29,195 million tons of CO2 per year.

Your guess is not even close to reality.
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2011
I did not say that the rains pulled it all out of the air. And, the actual amount of emission of Pinatubo is not known or knowable under present conditions of the data.

Look over the papers. They are model-based calculations based on experiments in the lab and tests of CO2 content in minerals. That is not the same thing as direct measurements taken via satellite or other means.

And, in order for a guess to be or not to be close to reality, one first would have to make a guess. I did no such thing.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
I did not say that the rains pulled it all out of the air. And, the actual amount of emission of Pinatubo is not known or knowable under present conditions of the data.
We had monitors setup around the volcano, and had since the 80's. These monitors were what enabled us to predict the eruption and evacutae the citizens and military bases before the volcano went off.
Look over the papers. They are model-based calculations based on experiments in the lab and tests of CO2 content in minerals.
And CO2 and SO2 content of the emissions of every Pinatubo eruption that we have recorded, which is over 20 at this time. The CO2 to SO2 ratio is a consistent 2.47:1
That is not the same thing as direct measurements taken via satellite or other means.
Which we have taken, repeatedly.
And, in order for a guess to be or not to be close to reality, one first would have to make a guess. I did no such thing.
No, you made a statement that we wouldn't see a spike in the CO2 data.
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2011
Making a statement is not the same thing as making a guess. And, I nowhere solidly stated that a spike would not be observable but only stated that it would not necessarily be the case if circumstances were right. That is a level of difference between stating that we wouldn't see a spike. I never said that. You interpreted that out of my comment.

Consider the rainfalls at the time of the eruption and afterward. How certain are you that this did not account for some of it?

Consider the following note:
htp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.B51A0194G

Note that a drop of the levels of emissions of C02 occurred for two years after Pinatubo. How certain are you that this would not affect the outcome in the data over time in even the least?

How many other mechanisms might there have been that might have affected the final outcome before anything reached Mauna Loa? There are great levels of uncertainties at the present time.

Are you willing to acknowledge the possibilities?
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2011
We had monitors setup around the volcano, and had since the 80's. These monitors were what enabled us to predict the eruption and evacutae the citizens and military bases before the volcano went off.


Seismographic monitors. It was the seismic data that led to the evacuations. That is a whole 'nother' ballgame from detailed CO2 monitoring. I cannot believe that you are that clueless to the differences. :)
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2011
I was aware of SO2 monitoring around the fumaroles. That was what was being directly monitored so as to anticipate magma activity. I admit that I was unaware of any direct CO2 monitoring at that time, although that has become more standard practice among volcano teams since somewhere afterward.

I would be most interested in reading any directly observed Pinatubo CO2 data that was taken at the time of the eruption, if any.
MikeyK
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2011
Skeptic Heretic- thanks for your as usual intelligent output. I wouldn't bother trying to argue the toss with Sceticus Reeks/Dachpyarswipe/whatever he calls himself at any particular time. He has no interest in learning, just regurgitating the same drivel to anyone that will listen. Usually ignoring these ubertrolls makes them go away.
pubwvj
4 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2011
Here's the difference between scientists and crackpots.


So in other words you and she are crackpots. I'll stick to the real science. The world has been warmer before. The world has been cooler before. Generally it was warmer than cooler. Cooler is worse than warmer. I'll take warmer over cooler. You're just happy with what the current temperature is because that is what you're used to.

Now, start focusing on the REAL problem: pollution.
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2011
Skeptic Heretic- thanks for your as usual intelligent output. I wouldn't bother trying to argue the toss with Sceticus Reeks/Dachpyarswipe/whatever he calls himself at any particular time. He has no interest in learning, just regurgitating the same drivel to anyone that will listen. Usually ignoring these ubertrolls makes them go away.


Hey, the sockpuppeteer makes an appearance! Regurgitated drivel? Hmmm... Please do not project your doings onto me.

Still does not change the fact that yet another significant error has been uncovered from the "climate change bible." Guaranteed, yet more will surface as scientists continue thinking for themselves and cease to fear charges of heresy and lost funding.

As to the fact that CO2 emissions were dropped measurably after Pinatubo, that also is fact. Link is above for anyone who wants to read the abstract. Several factors could account for lack of spikes in CO2 data. Ignore 'em? Closed-mindedness is the hallmark of AGW alarmists...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
Consider the following note:
htp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.B51A0194G

Note that a drop of the levels of emissions of C02 occurred for two years after Pinatubo. How certain are you that this would not affect the outcome in the data over time in even the least?
You completely misread this paper, that is if you read anything more than the abstract in a google search.

The rate of emission didn't drop. The uptake of CO2 increased in cooler temperatures due to more efficient photosynthesis thanks to the 20 megatons of SO2 that cooled the atmosphere. Again, CO2 did not decline, the rate of increase declined. That declination was .05ppm per year.

So if you'd like to take another stab at telling us that Pinatubo spewed more CO2 in a few days than mankind has in 200 years, go right ahead and show it to us. After all, that is the assertion that you're trying to defend.
kuntur2k
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2011
What is nice about believing or not on global warming is that the effect is the great equalizer. It will affect believers or non believers, alike. You and your neighbor will suffer its consequences along with your children and their children. So, the real question is will you wait to see who is right or wrong, or will you rather do something to prevent it. Will you be Jor-El or would you be part of Krypton's council.
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
axemaster, your:
Also, I'll remind you that global warming isn't the only problem caused by CO2 emissions. Ocean acidification is also happening RIGHT NOW and promises to be perhaps an even bigger disaster than global warming itself. CO2 reductions, massive ones, are the only option to prevent this.


Spot on! it blows my mind that the climate change deniers are so mono-maniacal/tunnel visioned.

As regards saving the ocean[s] from tipping to acid, reducing CO2 output will not be enough, as I understand it. We need to sequester many billions of tons of carbon from out of the ocean and I think increased algae production is the one sure method we can rely on. There may be other methods being discovered but the growing of seaweed is something we know can be done and I know how it can be done using primarily solar energy.
jyro
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2011
Suprise suprise suprise as Gomer would say. Another wrong climate prediction.
The ONLY constant with climate throughout history is change. If it weren't for climate change, we wouldn't be here.
YawningDog
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
It's important to remember that Physorg reports nothing, they just cut and paste the articles from other sources.

So don't blame poor Physorg for the wretched quality of the writing, they didn't do it. They just copy the work of others.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2011
@Yellowdart,
But climate scientist Ray Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"
It would be nice if the article explained what the difference is.
It's pretty simple.

Once you raise CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it takes centuries for it to return back to normal even if you completely stopped pumping additional fossil CO2 from underground carbon reservoirs back into the air.

At the same time, Earth's climate has a lot of inertia. Oceans have a lot of water in them, and water can soak up a lot of energy as it warms up. So, the climate's temperature response is very "sluggish".

Those two factors together, mean that a large pulse of CO2 will lead to significant long-term climate response (when the climate finally catches up), but that response will develop slowly -- the rate of change, or the transient temperature increases from year to year, will be low.
lincoln
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2011
In none of these comments is it noted how a global economic agenda is easily manipulated for the profit of special interests. It should be recognized that the structure of governments and corporations is such that any contested frontier, be it economic, political, scientific or ecological, will become a battleground for power and profit. Whatever the truth may be about global warming, you are certain not to know it. Global power wars do not bow to truth or the interests of general welfare. The most profitable short-term policy will be contested between those institutions that will profit the most, and the winning faction will gain the right to demand that we pay for whatever scheme they invent. I do not think this will benefit humanity given the institutions currently in the running. I do not believe this is a scientific question at all.
rexalfielee
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2011
I come from a town called Broken Hill (BH) in the far west of NSW, Australia. When I was a child the maximum temperature I remember ever & it only occurred once or twice was 43 degrees Celsius. In the last 2 summers, not this one, BH has recorded 46 & 47 degrees twice each.

Tell me global warming isn't occurring at an horrific rate. We are the main contributors to this & we excel at denying our involvement. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen in any case but it wouldn't be happening at the rate it is & that is because of us. We remove the jungles & vegetation & CO2 does the rest, the CO2 that we produce with out factories, vehicles & farming of animals. We also produce it in the production of supplies to maintain power for our lifestyles.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2011
I come from a town called Broken Hill (BH) in the far west of NSW, Australia. When I was a child the maximum temperature I remember ever & it only occurred once or twice was 43 degrees Celsius. In the last 2 summers, not this one, BH has recorded 46 & 47 degrees twice each.

Tell me global warming isn't occurring at an horrific rate. We are the main contributors to this & we excel at denying our involvement. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen in any case but it wouldn't be happening at the rate it is & that is because of us. We remove the jungles & vegetation & CO2 does the rest, the CO2 that we produce with out factories, vehicles & farming of animals. We also produce it in the production of supplies to maintain power for our lifestyles.
It's nice when GW alarmists are so easily tripped by their own lies:

http:/weather.mla.com.au/climate-history/nsw/broken-hill

The highest temperature ever recorded was 45.3, and that was in 2001. This year 42.0 was the highest (so far).
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2011
It's nice when GW alarmists are so easily tripped by their own lies


It's nice when a propagandist from the anti-global-warming nut case crowd. (the guys that deny what is being reported in science journals and backed up with real measurements and make stuff up to blind themselves of what science is all about).

The highest temperature ever recorded was 45.3, and that was in 2001. This year 42.0 was the highest (so far).

The observer said: Only occurred once or twice was 43 degrees Celsius (when he was a kid). Who do you believe propagandist.

Howhot
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2011
climate's temperature response is very "sluggish".

Those two factors together, mean that a large pulse of CO2 will lead to significant long-term climate response (when the climate finally catches up), but that response will develop slowly -- the rate of change, or the transient temperature increases from year to year, will be low.


I have got to quote you PE because it just needs to be. Read it global-warming-deniers. The weather maybe fine today, but it creeps along slowly. I'm like the Ausy guy, I remember spikes of hot and cold, but not consistent baking summers or half wet winters. Or clouds so high in the atmosphere. Something has changed.
JP62
not rated yet Jan 25, 2011
Two new articles have been released that climate deniers should read. The first, "Humans Have Been Provoking Climate Change for Thousands of Years, Carbon History Shows" by EPFL scientists.

The second,"World's Biggest Extinction Event: Massive Volcanic Eruption, Burning Coal and Accelerated Greenhouse Gas Choked out Life" by researchers at the Uni. of Calgary, show direct evidence that massive volcanic eruptions caused massive coal combustion. This evidence supports models for significant generation of greenhouse gases that contributed to the worst extinction event in earths history.

While the second study was not related to human activity, the point is that run-away greenhouse gas emissions CAN contribute to an extinction event, as has happened in the past.