Far more people at risk of rising seas than feared - climate study

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

really ? every year a heat record is broken, hurricanes are stronger and bigger than before, the ice melt in Greenland is increasing, forest fires are now a danger world wide and drought in places like Australia have become the new normal, my sister runs a cattle farm in Australia, the dams she built on her land are dry and she has had to slaughter half of her herd because there is no water or feed for them. In siberia the frozen tundra is warming up and releasing methane gas that is 30 times more harmful than CO2, houses in the far North (Alaska, Siberia etc) are sinking due to the permafrost melting. 

Well it is warming, so it is logical that every year is close to a record. Hurricanes are less frequent though we are better able to measure them. Australia seems prone to floods and droughts. 

The north is warming, yet it is still an ice age. If there were no human's how much less warming would there be?

 

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Remember when the scientists were telling us we were going to be in an ice age by now? Not that long ago, either. I remember it well.

I think you will find that was a prediction made on the basis of a nuclear winter, when the politicians were at the peak of brandishing nukes at one another.

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Wet and warm is better for life.

I guess we'll have to grow gills and webbed feet then, a la Kevin Costner. Was that really Dennis Hopper in that film, or you?

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I think you will find that was a prediction made on the basis of a nuclear winter, when the politicians were at the peak of brandishing nukes at one another.

No, it was a prediction made on the basis of sustained global cooling from 1945 to 1970, and some famines and crop failures which occurred round the world at the same time.

 

It was the subject of a CIA report, in which the apocalyptic language was very similar to what we hear today from the global warming zealots.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

No, it was a prediction made on the basis of sustained global cooling from 1945 to 1970, and some famines and crop failures which occurred round the world at the same time.

 

It was the subject of a CIA report, in which the apocalyptic language was very similar to what we hear today from the global warming zealots.

You might be able to produce that report, but then you'd have to kill us all.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, it was a prediction made on the basis of sustained global cooling from 1945 to 1970, and some famines and crop failures which occurred round the world at the same time.

 

It was the subject of a CIA report, in which the apocalyptic language was very similar to what we hear today from the global warming zealots.

‘Zealots’ you say.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Wet and warm is better for life.

Well it’s better for life adapted to ‘wet and warm’.

[RickBradford]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

One forecast by the University of Wisconsin? That doesn't sound like a scientific consensus to me, and the reasoning behind the prediction is not shown.

Please don't take my ear, I need both for listening.

Oh, there's lots more than one study in the report; several institutes in the US, UK and Russia, climate conferences to discuss the potentially disastrous cooling.

 

There's even mention of a US National Climate Plan, working on the same problem; an irreversible slide into a new ice age, with food shortages worldwide and consequent widespread unrest (which is why the CIA was involved).

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I think you will find that was a prediction made on the basis of a nuclear winter, when the politicians were at the peak of brandishing nukes at one another.

No, nuclear winter was a different forecast. In the event of a widespread nuclear war, nuclear winter would probably still happen.

The ice age forecast was different to nuclear winter, it was a natural event.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

drought in places like Australia have become the new normal, my sister runs a cattle farm in Australia, the dams she built on her land are dry and she has had to slaughter half of her herd because there is no water or feed for them.

Perhaps drought is the norm in Australia, and the period during which cattle ranching was possible is the abnormality.

 

I've driven across paddocks on farms near Broken hill which were twice as wide as the horizon was seen, and the only water came from bores. The number of sheep supported was by the amount of acres per sheep, not sheep per acre.

[thaibeachlovers]

56 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

If there were no human's how much less warming would there be?

The million dollar question they can't answer.

[Nyezhov]

56 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess we'll have to grow gills and webbed feet then, a la Kevin Costner. Was that really Dennis Hopper in that film, or you?

Sunscreen young man!

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps drought is the norm in Australia, and the period during which cattle ranching was possible is the abnormality.

 

I've driven across paddocks on farms near Broken hill which were twice as wide as the horizon was seen, and the only water came from bores. The number of sheep supported was by the amount of acres per sheep, not sheep per acre.

1982 was the last big drought we had, if I remember correctly. There was a property in the middle of NSW ( Gilgunnia ) of 44,000 acres without a single blade of live grass on it. In the Pilbara, the ratio years ago was one sheep to 20 acres, or one beef cattle to 200 acres.

It looks like the current one is even more extreme. The heat cell of a couple of years ago over most of inland Australia pushed temperatures above 50 C.

Farmers speak of drought-proofing their properties, but I think it has gone beyond that.

[howbri]

The corrupt, communist elitists never quit. Notice it's always 30-40 or more years away when the calamity will happen. They've been wrong about it all for more than 40 years.

[Pattaya46]

14 minutes ago, howbri said:

The corrupt, communist elitists never quit. Notice it's always 30-40 or more years away when the calamity will happen. They've been wrong about it all for more than 40 years.

Wrong? Just have a look at Jakarta who may be the fastest sinking city in the world. Some part of the city go down 15 to 30 cm per year ! It's not 40 years away; more like 20, or 10... It's an accelerated movement of what is happening to Bangkok.

 

One of the many videos on Jakarta sinking problem :

 

 

[toast1]

Here is an example of absurd, ridiculous and hysterical global warming fraud.

[RideJocky]

People, all need to sacrifice if we’re to save the planet. 
 

I’m giving up plastic straws today. 
 

Who’s with me? 
 

Together we CAN!!!!!!

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, toast1 said:

Here is an example of absurd, ridiculous and hysterical global warming fraud.

And you base that on what?

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So who you gonna trust on where the scientific consensus was about climate in the 70's?  The CIA or the National Academy of Sciences?

It's not a question of whether they were right or wrong; it's a matter of how certain they were in their predictions.

 

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change," the report begins, referring to global cooling, and then goes on to cite supporting evidence from several groups in the UK, US, and Russia which had come to similar conclusions.

 

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources."

 

It is a warning against hubris; only a fool would believe that scientists have magically been able to become error-free in the space of 40 years. The computers may be faster, but the human faults inevitably remain.

 

[Salerno]

1 hour ago, Pattaya46 said:

Just have a look at Jakarta who may be the fastest sinking city in the world.

And that has what exactly to do with climate change?  

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

It's not a question of whether they were right or wrong; it's a matter of how certain they were in their predictions.

 

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change," the report begins, referring to global cooling, and then goes on to cite supporting evidence from several groups in the UK, US, and Russia which had come to similar conclusions.

 

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources."

 

It is a warning against hubris; only a fool would believe that scientists have magically been able to become error-free in the space of 40 years. The computers may be faster, but the human faults inevitably remain.

 

But of course what the National Academy of Sciences wrote shows that the CIA's evaluation was was wrong. The National Academy of Sciences report represents the consensus of scientists. In fact, the National Academy report notes that the science is still very tentative. It give a slight and tentative edge to CO2 warming.  Because they knew that the science was still in its infancy. This was before the error of big data. (According to Moores law, the power of computers has increased since then by at least 2 to the 15th power. Apparently the doubling slowed somewhat from about 2012 onwards) So why should anyone care about what the CIA claims concerning consensus? Who knows what the agenda of the author or authors was?

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's not a question of whether they were right or wrong; it's a matter of how certain they were in their predictions.

 

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change," the report begins, referring to global cooling, and then goes on to cite supporting evidence from several groups in the UK, US, and Russia which had come to similar conclusions.

 

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources."

 

It is a warning against hubris; only a fool would believe that scientists have magically been able to become error-free in the space of 40 years. The computers may be faster, but the human faults inevitably remain.

 

Who was certain in their predictions? Why would you prefer the assertions of an anonymous CIA author or authors over the report of the National Academy of Sciences? Those reports do represent consensus.

[Scot123]

11 hours ago, neeray said:

The deniers are up early this morning.

Really, so as Algore stated as scientific fact the great lakes are now empty, there is no longer ice in the North/South poles, no more pola bears and London has been under water for the past decade and all the islands are under water!!! Mmmmm but this time it is true and anyone who disagrees is a denier.... OMG laughing so much.... Wait, wait I bet you believe the report read out in Congress by Obama that was written my a comic graphics artist and the much banded quote of 99% of scientists agree but when you actually examine this figure it is only 0.001% of scientists sorry it may be 0.01%, my bad. Omg I think I've p|she'd myself laughing. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Scot123 said:

Really, so as Algore stated as scientific fact the great lakes are now empty, there is no longer ice in the North/South poles, no more pola bears and London has been under water for the past decade and all the islands are under water!!! Mmmmm but this time it is true and anyone who disagrees is a denier.... OMG laughing so much.... Wait, wait I bet you believe the report read out in Congress by Obama that was written my a comic graphics artist and the much banded quote of 99% of scientists agree but when you actually examine this figure it is only 0.001% of scientists sorry it may be 0.01%, my bad. Omg I think I've p|she'd myself laughing. 

So much dishonesty here it's hard to know where to being.

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, it's the National Academy of Science that, by your lights, was misrepresenting the state of scientific consensus about climate change.

 I didn't say anything of the sort. I haven't written anything about the National Academy of Science.

 

Stop making stuff up.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 I didn't say anything of the sort. I haven't written anything about the National Academy of Science.

 

Stop making stuff up.

I'm just trying to fathom your thought processes. I can't think of a rational reason why someone would prefer an anonymously authored report from the CIA over the public report of the National Academy of Sciences. Do you think transparency and accountability have no value?

[Pattaya46]

59 minutes ago, Salerno said:

And that has what exactly to do with climate change?  

Did you read the title of this thread and the header of the OP ? 

 

"Far more people at risk of rising seas than feared" &

"Climate change will put three times more people at risk of coastal flooding by 2050 than previously thought"

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I'm just trying to fathom your thought processes. I can't think of a rational reason why someone would prefer an anonymously authored report from the CIA over the public report of the National Academy of Sciences. Do you think transparency and accountability have no value?

Is it because the CIA report was secret so that makes it more believable? Really, I'm just puzzled by your preference.

[RickBradford]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I'm just trying to fathom your thought processes

If you read my posts, you would find it easier to 'fathom' what is going on.

 

There is ample documentary evidence that a considerable body of well-known US and European climate scientists in the 1970s were concerned enough about global cooling to take those concerns to the top levels of government.

 

Stephen Schneider, later a fervent global warming advocate, even wrote a book about the potential problems from global cooling called The Genesis Strategy. It was a mainstream issue, and the scientists who predicted long-term global cooling were quite wrong.

 

Therefore we should be very cautious in assuming that scientists are infallible, or even accurate. They are human, and humans are prone to bias, groupthink and error.

 

That's it.

 

As a rider, I have written nothing about the "National Academy of Science", and yet you suggest I have been accusing it of misrepresentation. I would be obliged if you would stop making up false statements and attributing them to me.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If you read my posts, you would find it easier to 'fathom' what is going on.

 

There is ample documentary evidence that a considerable body of well-known US and European climate scientists in the 1970s were concerned enough about global cooling to take those concerns to the top levels of government.

 

Stephen Schneider, later a fervent global warming advocate, even wrote a book about the potential problems from global cooling called The Genesis Strategy. It was a mainstream issue, and the scientists who predicted long-term global cooling were quite wrong.

 

Therefore we should be very cautious in assuming that scientists are infallible, or even accurate. They are human, and humans are prone to bias, groupthink and error.

 

That's it.

 

As a rider, I have written nothing about the "National Academy of Science", and yet you suggest I have been accusing it of misrepresentation. I would be obliged if you would stop making up false statements and attributing them to me.

I just don't understand why you would claim a consensus for global cooling in the 70's when the fact of the National Academy of Science's report clearly proves that's not the case.