Data Reveals The Challenges Posed By Climate Change

[tlansford]

I am truly amased to see how many global warming skeptics there are in this forum, as a retired science teacher it saddens me to see how much my colleagues have failed to teach people how to interpret data correctly and how to spot false or misleading data.

Absolutely agree with your statement.

The anti-global-warming marketing has been unrelenting. It has the advantage in the debate that it only needs to plant a seed of doubt in peoples' minds in order to stall action and maintain the status quo. As we see here, it seems quite effective.

Can you please give us your opinion on why temperatures have remained flattened for more than a decade while CO2 has continued to rise dramatically? The IPCC predicted temperatures going straight up, why has this not happened?

No, and what is the relevance of your statement? First of all, it is incorrect. Second, looking at a 10 year trend regarding our climate is ridiculous. Third, people who ignore the facts on global warming will ignore opinions and explanations. Fourth, while weather on this planet is part of a very complex system, the effects of pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere are understood as are the solutions for pumping less CO2 into the atmosphere. The only open question is "will we take action?".

[Payboy]

Dr Royol Chitradon, director of the Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (HAII)

Not surprised that all these specialists and experts from obscure taxpayer funded agencies are popping-up all over like mushrooms after the floods. Guess everyone wants in on the increased study tours, grants, committee funds and handouts.

[MaxYakov]

Or explain this............

Orientation dissonance.

[RickBradford]

The only open question is "will we take action?".

The answer to that is "No".

The Chinese in particular have made it perfectly clear that they will not trash their development prospects because of the scaremongering of Western 'progressives', based on 'science' which has a shaky foundation and is manifestly corrupted by a Left/Green political agenda.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to continue to increase at a fairly steady rate of about 10% over a 20-year period.

From the data collected over the past 40 years or so, this seems very unlikely to pose a problem, except for groups like Greenpeace and WWF, which rely on scaremongering to prop up their multi-million dollar empires.

Extra CO2 is likely to be beneficial, and as to slightly higher temperatures, I think Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT sums it up well:

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

[tlansford]

The only open question is "will we take action?".

The answer to that is "No".

The Chinese in particular have made it perfectly clear that they will not trash their development prospects because of the scaremongering of Western 'progressives', based on 'science' which has a shaky foundation and is manifestly corrupted by a Left/Green political agenda.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to continue to increase at a fairly steady rate of about 10% over a 20-year period.

From the data collected over the past 40 years or so, this seems very unlikely to pose a problem, except for groups like Greenpeace and WWF, which rely on scaremongering to prop up their multi-million dollar empires.

Extra CO2 is likely to be beneficial, and as to slightly higher temperatures, I think Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT sums it up well:

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

So because China won't change is justification for doing nothing? Moral pillars those Chinese. (BTW, as an aside, do you know how many solar panels China is producing?)

WWF and Greenpeace are multi-million dollar empires, ... well, well, well, yes, the dwarfs of industry like Exxon are shaking in their boots.

"Extra CO2 is likely to be beneficial..." - I see you are drinking the Heartland Institute koolaid...

Your reply is correct, "no" - well at least for some people. The rest of us aren't waiting on you.

[RickBradford]

So because China won't change is justification for doing nothing? Moral pillars those Chinese.

Ah, so you think the enlightened West should show those morally backward Chinese how to behave. Funny how the Green/Left always talks about equality and justice, yet is first to play the racist card when it suits them.

BTW, as an aside, do you know how many solar panels China is producing?)

Tens of millions per year? Maybe hundreds of millions? All for export to the gullible West. Millions of windmills, too. Business as usual. For its own energy needs, China is building the equivalent of 2 new coal-fired power plants each week.

The rest of us aren't waiting on you.

Good. Go ahead and reduce your CO2 emissions in the most effective way you can think of, and while you're at it, tell Al Gore to do the same.

EDIT: for spacing issues

Edited November 17, 2011 by RickBradford

[NanaFoods]

can you explain the Medieval Warm Period in terms of man-made CO2?

Can you explain why this curve doesn't have error margins, in terms of sciences ?

Typical.

Nice try to deflect the fact that you cannot answer.

[tlansford]

So because China won't change is justification for doing nothing? Moral pillars those Chinese.

Ah, so you think the enlightened West should show those morally backward Chinese how to behave. Funny how the Green/Left always talks about equality and justice, yet is first to play the racist card when it suits them.

BTW, as an aside, do you know how many solar panels China is producing?)

Tens of millions per year? Maybe hundreds of millions? All for export to the gullible West. Millions of windmills, too. Business as usual. For its own energy needs, China is building the equivalent of 2 new coal-fired power plants each week.

The rest of us aren't waiting on you.

Good. Go ahead and reduce your CO2 emissions in the most effective way you can think of, and while you're at it, tell Al Gore to do the same.

EDIT: for spacing issues

Racism? Are you really equating a comment about morals with racism? It is becoming easier to see why you believe the propaganda from the industry.

Yes, I think that the rest of the world should lead. It's called leadership. Those countries and people in the world capable of it are needed now. Please do your part, too. I hope that you will. Consider the consequences of a position like yours should it prove to be wrong versus a position like mine should it prove to be wrong. The downside of you being wrong is catastrophic for the planet. Even if you won't be around to see the results.

Take a look at the current flooding. Everyone recognizes that raping the environment with uncontrolled greed and the associated development is the primary cause for this devastation. And look at the magnitude of the costs of this flood to Thailand as well a the loss of life.

Morality is knowing and doing the right thing. Taking care of our planet is the right thing to do. It also happens to be very good economics - but even if it were not, we should do it. Just because it is the right thing to do.

My $0.02.

[RickBradford]

The downside of you being wrong is catastrophic for the planet

Nobody outside of Greenpeace and WWF believes that -- not even the IPCC believes that. It's pure Greenie vapouring.

But the downside of you being wrong is already being felt; the biofuels nonsense contributed to rising food prices in 2007/8 causing poor families in Africa to die in sufficient numbers that the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, called biofuels 'a crime against humanity'. Around 3000 elderly people are expected to die in the UK of cold this year, because spiralling green-related fuel bills make it too expensive for them to heat their homes.

Climate change doesn't kill people; climate change alarmism already has killed people.

As for showing 'moral leadership' to those you regard as backward heathen, here's what the much-quoted Richard Muller of BEST has to say:

… the public needs to know this, that anything we do in the United States will not affect global warming by a significant amount. Because, all projections show that most of the future carbon dioxide is going to be coming from China, India, and the developing world. … [A]nything we do that will not be followed by China and India is basically wasted.

[manutoo]

can you explain the Medieval Warm Period in terms of man-made CO2?

Can you explain why this curve doesn't have error margins, in terms of sciences ?

Typical.

Nice try to deflect the fact that you cannot answer.

That was a genuine question from me.

I have the answer to your question, and if you take the pain to search for it, you'd get it in a few minutes as it has been already discussed 1000 of times. I'm not going to spoon-food it to you, coz anyway I'm pretty sure you'd not care about it, considering the way you asked for it and that you didn't answer mine.

On the opposite, I'd be happy to join the warming-skeptic-crowd-knowing-it-better-than-all, so I went to read your link. It's extremely long and boring, so I read only 25% and overview'ed the 75% remaining. I didn't find a trace of explanation why they don't show the error margin in the curve (although the author bashes nicely the GIEC about the error margin of their curve ). Maybe I missed it and hoped you could enlighten me. Unfortunately, it seems you can't... So I guess once again, that's one of that warming-skeptic sites that can't back up anything with solid scientific bases.

Edited November 18, 2011 by manutoo

[Tanaka]

While part of this disaster is due to human error, the climate is actually getting warmer, and it's easily measurable by looking at sea temperatures. Even very small increases have large consequences like melting polar ice and increased rainfall. This year's rainfall in Thailand is nothing unique, but part of a general trend. Anyone who can read a chart will realise that very quickly, but let me remind you also that the central province of Thailand have been seriously flooded for 5-6 years now. Unfortunately, it took a situation where Bangkok was threatened for it to make newspaper headlines.

As for the reasons for the warming, that's another discussion...

Actually, according to the very recent BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study, temperatures have not risen in over a decade. (note - of course the spin from these studies was the usual appocalyptic hyperbole but you can't deny the statistics which are laid bare)

Also, last year Prof Jones of the infamous 'Climategate' scandal admitted that there had been no warming since 1998.

These are not skeptics, these are full blooded warmists using fudged warmist data and they still can't find warming.

I see that you have swallowed the propaganda.

global warming is real. Get use to it.

Apparently you are very slow digesting propaganda. The "global warming" issue has long ago, even by its believers, been adjusted to a hoax. There is no global warming. But the believers now call it climate change. Maybe you should try and update yourself so you dont have to make such a fool of yourself next time you decide to comment.

[tlansford]

The downside of you being wrong is catastrophic for the planet

Nobody outside of Greenpeace and WWF believes that -- not even the IPCC believes that. It's pure Greenie vapouring.

But the downside of you being wrong is already being felt; the biofuels nonsense contributed to rising food prices in 2007/8 causing poor families in Africa to die in sufficient numbers that the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, called biofuels 'a crime against humanity'. Around 3000 elderly people are expected to die in the UK of cold this year, because spiralling green-related fuel bills make it too expensive for them to heat their homes.

Climate change doesn't kill people; climate change alarmism already has killed people.

As for showing 'moral leadership' to those you regard as backward heathen, here's what the much-quoted Richard Muller of BEST has to say:

… the public needs to know this, that anything we do in the United States will not affect global warming by a significant amount. Because, all projections show that most of the future carbon dioxide is going to be coming from China, India, and the developing world. … [A]nything we do that will not be followed by China and India is basically wasted.

"backward heathen" is your perspective and not mine.

Biofuels is your example, not mine. Biofuels, when not using actual byproduct of other processes has been shown to give a net increase in CO2 emissions and are not a solution. I am not familiar with your UK example, but bad policy implementations is not a reason to not take action.

Good luck to your great grandchildren, sir. They will need it.

[RickBradford]

Biofuels, when not using actual byproduct of other processes has been shown to give a net increase in CO2 emissions and are not a solution.

Quite. And who pushed the use of biofuels a decade ago?

Greenpeace will be giving away thousands of litres of free green fuel to motorists at our Guerrilla Garage [which] will be dispensing bio-diesel - a plant-based fuel that is identical to ordinary diesel but only causes a fraction of the damage to the climate.

The Greenpeace action will highlight the fact that green fuels like bio-diesel are still discouraged in the UK and taxed at the same rate as ordinary diesel despite being much better for the environment.

Matthew Spencer, Campaign Manager at Greenpeace, said: "We are giving away free bio-diesel to make the point that we can switch to green fuels right now and make a huge reduction in the environmental impact of motoring. Given the massive devastation caused by climate change and related floods we really don't have much choice."

Another loony Left/Green scheme that has caused widespread damage and misery -- not that they care one jot for that.

The more we allow these know-nothing activists to continue influence public policy, the worse it will be for everyone.

Edited November 18, 2011 by RickBradford

[tlansford]

Biofuels, when not using actual byproduct of other processes has been shown to give a net increase in CO2 emissions and are not a solution.

Quite. And who pushed the use of biofuels a decade ago?

Greenpeace will be giving away thousands of litres of free green fuel to motorists at our Guerrilla Garage [which] will be dispensing bio-diesel - a plant-based fuel that is identical to ordinary diesel but only causes a fraction of the damage to the climate.

The Greenpeace action will highlight the fact that green fuels like bio-diesel are still discouraged in the UK and taxed at the same rate as ordinary diesel despite being much better for the environment.

Matthew Spencer, Campaign Manager at Greenpeace, said: "We are giving away free bio-diesel to make the point that we can switch to green fuels right now and make a huge reduction in the environmental impact of motoring. Given the massive devastation caused by climate change and related floods we really don't have much choice."

Another loony Left/Green scheme that has caused widespread damage and misery -- not that they care one jot for that.

The more we allow these know-nothing activists to continue influence public policy, the worse it will be for everyone.

you are exceptionally talented at ignoring half of the information.

when not using actual byproduct of other processes

[tlansford]

While part of this disaster is due to human error, the climate is actually getting warmer, and it's easily measurable by looking at sea temperatures. Even very small increases have large consequences like melting polar ice and increased rainfall. This year's rainfall in Thailand is nothing unique, but part of a general trend. Anyone who can read a chart will realise that very quickly, but let me remind you also that the central province of Thailand have been seriously flooded for 5-6 years now. Unfortunately, it took a situation where Bangkok was threatened for it to make newspaper headlines.

As for the reasons for the warming, that's another discussion...

Actually, according to the very recent BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study, temperatures have not risen in over a decade. (note - of course the spin from these studies was the usual appocalyptic hyperbole but you can't deny the statistics which are laid bare)

Also, last year Prof Jones of the infamous 'Climategate' scandal admitted that there had been no warming since 1998.

These are not skeptics, these are full blooded warmists using fudged warmist data and they still can't find warming.

I see that you have swallowed the propaganda.

global warming is real. Get use to it.

Apparently you are very slow digesting propaganda. The "global warming" issue has long ago, even by its believers, been adjusted to a hoax. There is no global warming. But the believers now call it climate change. Maybe you should try and update yourself so you dont have to make such a fool of yourself next time you decide to comment.

Tanaka, I would suggest that you are slow to assimilate facts. And climate change was the term coined by the right's propaganda machine to make global warming seem less serious. And the people who care about the planet and the environment do not call it a hoax.

[astral]

According to Dr Royol Chitradon, director of the Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (HAII) at the Ministry of Science and Technology, climate change makes it nearly impossible to forecast drought and flood risks with accuracy

Now there's a good excuse for not being on the ball.

Was Global Warming an issue 50 years ago, the last time a disaster of this proportion hit??

Give us a break

[RickBradford]

And the people who care about the planet and the environment do not call it a hoax.

Nearly right. In fact, the people who have been taken in by the hoax then claim to 'care about the planet and the environment'.

However, even the IPCC, for so long the cheerleader for the climate catastrophe movement, has been forced to rethink

"Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".

Translated: The natural climate forces are stronger than we thought, and we give up, we can't say whether it will get warmer or colder, wetter or dryer, stormier or more settled in the next twenty years.

Global warming alarmism is a busted flush -- all that it has achieved is the wasting of hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars and the deaths of several hundred thousand of the world's poorest people -- a typically destructive Left/Green outcome.

People who really care about the planet and the environment focus on things like water quality, land erosion and salinity, and a heap of other things which actually affect the lives of people here and now, not bedwetting about a benign trace gas.

[manutoo]

Global warming alarmism is a busted flush -- all that it has achieved is the wasting of hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars and the deaths of several hundred thousand of the world's poorest people -- a typically destructive Left/Green outcome.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-and-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor May/June 2007 :

In his latest State of the Union address, President George W. Bush called on the country to produce 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year by 2017, nearly five times the level currently mandated.

Yup, that d*mn G.W.Bush was a dangerous Lefty/Greeny. Lucky we got ride of him..!

[lannarebirth]

Global warming alarmism is a busted flush -- all that it has achieved is the wasting of hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars and the deaths of several hundred thousand of the world's poorest people -- a typically destructive Left/Green outcome.

http://www.foreignaf...starve-the-poor May/June 2007 :

In his latest State of the Union address, President George W. Bush called on the country to produce 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year by 2017, nearly five times the level currently mandated.

Yup, that d*mn G.W.Bush was a dangerous Lefty/Greeny. Lucky we got ride of him..!

Iowa caucuses, Cargill, ADM, Monsanto, crop subsidies.

Edited November 18, 2011 by lannarebirth