UN says greenhouse gas concentrations hit record levels

[jackr]

How can anyone say that man alone is responsible for global warming ? They can't !

Yes it does cycle, but one doesn't need to be Einstein to realise that billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere year on year doesn't contribute. Everything else is immaterial with this argument.

I have my own hypothesis that it is the body heat from the 7 billion people and the heat released by their machines, as well, that is the primary source of global warming. I have pursued some models to reinforce this hypothesis, but they refused to even talk to me.

They refuse to talk because they know that that scenario is negligible when the amount of extra heat from the sun trapped by all the extra gases in the atmosphere is taken into consideration.

--

Those who dismiss the affects of so-called greenhouse gases seriously need to gen-up. The sun is everything to us, a deal-breaker, and anything that upsets the reflection of heat will have consequences. Trouble is, words like climate change, global warming, greenhouse gases, etc are all stigmatized. I hope we screw ourselves to oblivion to give the whales a chance.

Edited November 26, 2011 by jackr

[Scott]

Climate is very complex. A lot of variables involved for scientists to consider.

[RickBradford]

Climate is very complex. A lot of variables involved for scientists to consider.

And so they don't consider them; they have other ways to make their point.

]"…the important thing is to make sure they're [the skeptics] loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about"[/i]. - Michael 'Stick' Mann sets out his stall in an e-mail to Phil 'The Trick' Jones

[maidu]

I've heard and seen plenty enough of on-the-scene reports by scientists and laymen - to convince me that the world is warming.

Almost no one disputes this. The controversy is about whether it is a natural weather cycle or mostly caused by human activities. Personally, I am just not sure.

Many of the skeptics openly dispute the earth's surface and its oceans are warming. The terms 'global warming' and even 'climate change' have polarized people, with a majority of scientists and laymen believing it is dire and a very vocal minority seeming to believe it's a hoax fueling a political agenda and/or enable some unscrupulous scientists to get grant money. I agree, the main issue should be to gauge scientifically: what extent the warming is a natural cycle, and to what extent it's caused by humans. Even the fixated skeptics agree there's too much trashing of the planet, so the primary issue would seem to narrow down further; to how to lessen the toxic load that humans are unleashing on planet.

Then there are myriad other arguments, such as saying massive CO2 emissions are completely harmless to the overall warming scenario. Some of those same folks probably think the 'ozone hole' at the Antarctic was a hoax. Well, it wasn't, and info dissemination and tangible efforts to lessen the chemical emissions which exacerbated it - have helped close the hole.

[RickBradford]

Some of those same folks probably think the 'ozone hole' at the Antarctic was a hoax. Well, it wasn't, and info dissemination and tangible efforts to lessen the chemical emissions which exacerbated it - have helped close the hole.

Er, not quite.

From the New Scientist, 2 Oct 2011

In the first three months of this year, something unprecedented happened in the skies over the Arctic. A large hole appeared in the ozone layer, far bigger than any seen there before.

The Arctic ozone layer suffers a little damage every winter, but the effect is normally short-lived. "This is a clear step beyond that," says Neil Harris of the University of Cambridge.

.....

The hole was similar in size to those seen in Antarctica in the 1980s. The Antarctic hole has continued to grow since then, and is far larger today.

[Jingthing]

The terms 'global warming' and even 'climate change' have polarized people, with a majority of scientists and laymen believing it is dire and a very vocal minority seeming to believe it's a hoax fueling a political agenda and/or enable some unscrupulous scientists to get grant money.

Yes and this vocal minority is very happy to suggest that our species risk ruining our only currently possible habitat by doing nothing, because the vast majority of credible scientists MAY be wrong. It is no coincidence that in the USA, the country still with the biggest environmental footprint, a big part of this skeptics movement comprises of radical right wing extremist fundamentalist Christians who believe the "apocalypse" is coming very soon anyway, and the true believers will be raptured instantly into the skies. So no they wouldn't care about our species earthly home.

To wit:

As a result, climate denial and political conservatism have become, at least in the United States, thoroughly entwined although some evan… evangelical churches now encourage action to avert global warming because it threatens God's creation, climate scepticism has become part of the world view of some Christian fundamentalists. This stew of paranoia finds expression in figures such as republican congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann who, a few months ago attacked house speaker, Nancy Pelosi for her quote global warming fanaticism. She has said that she's just trying to save the planet, said Bachmann, we all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago (audience chuckling).

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/ideas-and-society/the-politics-and-science-of-climate-change-denialism Edited November 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

Yes and this vocal minority is very happy to suggest .... doing nothing, because the vast majority of credible scientists MAY be wrong.

No. We want to do nothing because the vast majority of credible climate scientists are probably right. And they say there is no problem.

It is the incredible ones, the shabby, underhand arrogant rent-seekers like Michael Mann, the hapless third-rate hackers like Phil Jones and Keith 'One Tree' Briffa, that we think are almost certainly wrong.

Here's Dr. Phil Jones, world renowned climatologist, being asked for help. He can't give it,because he doesn't know how to plot a trend in Excel.

"I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

"What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then.":

This is the statistical genius telling us to close down our industries. Enough of this alarmist climate folly.

[Jingthing]

We want to do nothing because the vast majority of credible climate scientists are probably right. And they say there is no problem.

Do you really expect rational people to believe that propaganda?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that ALL people in denial about this are motivated by religious fanaticism. There is also the very large group in denial motivated for economic reasons.

There is economically motivated denialism which comes, I suppose predominantly from the business sectors that feel their interests would be harmfully affected by the real removal of reliance on fossil fuel.

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/ideas-and-society/the-politics-and-science-of-climate-change-denialism

I don't doubt that the economic impact of actually dealing with this effectively would be massive and it would require unprecedented global cooperation. For that reason, I don't see any realistic chance man will stop this process. I think it is already time to address adaptation.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

Do you really expect rational people to believe that propaganda?

Perhaps you could go and find one, and ask him or her.

[Jingthing]

Do you really expect rational people to believe that propaganda?

Perhaps you could go and find one, and ask him or her.

That's a tall order, finding a rational person.

For my purposes, I think I'd tend to believe the vast majority of specialist scientists rather than tin foil hat conspiracy websites and far right wing American political candidates with extremely questionable agendas.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

tin foil hat conspiracy websites and far right wing American political candidates with extremely questionable agendas.

... as opposed to tinfoil hat websites set up specifically for pushing Green agit-prop and far left-wing political candidates across the Western world with extremely questionable agendas?

And I'm afraid the "vast majority of scientists support global warming" ruse was busted years ago.

Devised like a washing powder commercial ("97% of all scientists believe in AGW!!"), this number stems from a 2008 master's thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, who, along with others, conducted a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists.

The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

More fudging the data to push a Left/Green agenda. This stuff just never stops in the world of climate 'science'.

[Jingthing]

I agree. The irrational denial and demonizing the consensus of modern science as being a left wing conspiracy indeed never stops. The consensus of modern science is the closest to truth that we will ever have.

[RickBradford]

The consensus of modern science is the closest to truth that we will ever have.

Well, you're almost exactly quoting the Financial Times article from yesterday, which pointed out that that "consensus of modern science" has been ruined by the malfeasance, bad science, incompetence, skullduggery and petty bullying by precisely those climate scientists you have put your faith in.

The article is titled "Why climategate is a catastrophe for science" by Christopher Caldwell.

He writes, inter alia,

"While some of the [Climategate] email scientists were partisan, panels have cleared them of practising corrupt science. All the emails have shown is that scientists are no less prone to vanity, rivalries and corner-cutting than people in other walks of life.

"But that is everything. Voters in a democracy do not argue about science. They argue about the authority of scientists. And scientists' claim to authority comes from the perception that, in fact, they do not let their vanities and rivalries influence their work. Where others pursue their grubby little self-interest, scientists pursue only the truth. The [Climategate] emails of 2009, however, showed that some prominent members of the climate-change establishment were not operating in a spirit of openness. Defending a scientist's furtiveness on the grounds that "his science is good" is like defending a politician's blunder on the grounds that he "did nothing illegal". The emails were damaging because they undermined the scientists' claim to be speaking as scientists rather than as interested parties.

"If scientists are shown to be colluding to arrive at a given result, then the halo around science dissipates.

"Technocracies are inherently fragile because their legitimacy rests on the denial of a universal truth: everybody makes mistakes."

[Jingthing]

Elite change resistant business interests talking, how predictable.

A rebuttal:

He said, the people behind the release were "agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

[RickBradford]

Elite change resistant business interests talking, how predictable.

A rebuttal:

He said, the people behind the release were "agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial."

http://www.guardian....-science-emails

To which Caldwell added:

When Professor Mann tells the Guardian newspaper that the email leaks are "right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial" he is correct. But he is also open to the retort that he would say that, wouldn't he?

Any voter who does not want to be duped must listen to scientists with no more deference than he does any other interest group..

And Caldwell is far from being part of "elite business interests". In 2008, the NYT cited his journalism for excellence, particularly an article questioning the morality of capitalism. He's practically one of your own.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Scott
Foreign language edited out

[Jingthing]

I don't see anything in that article where he is seriously challenging the consensus of modern science on the topic. Rather he is making a moral critique at the margins. If you seriously think a set of cherry picked embarrassing emails disproves the scientific consensus, that's a political decision, not one based on science.

Oddly, in a weird way, we are at similar places. You deny the evidence of science and think we should do nothing. I accept the evidence of science but think we WILL do almost nothing. Same result.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

Oddly, in a weird way, we are at similar places.

Not even close.

My view is that people who have shown themselves, in their professional sphere, to be dishonest, incompetent, petty, vindictive, arrogant and narcissistic, might be honest in their actual work, but it would be very unwise to bet on it.

It is much more likely that they bring those undesirable qualities directly to their work, which is therefore rendered utterly compromised. Dishonest scientists don't do honest science.

For reasons of your own, you prefer to ignore all the clearly revealed signs of dishonesty and believe these people and their conclusions.

I do not agree with that position at all.

[koheesti]

Oddly, in a weird way, we are at similar places.

Not even close.

My view is that people who have shown themselves, in their professional sphere, to be dishonest, incompetent, petty, vindictive, arrogant and narcissistic, might be honest in their actual work, but it would be very unwise to bet on it.

It is much more likely that they bring those undesirable qualities directly to their work, which is therefore rendered utterly compromised. Dishonest scientists don't do honest science.

For reasons of your own, you prefer to ignore all the clearly revealed signs of dishonesty and believe these people and their conclusions.

I do not agree with that position at all.

I'm amazed people can read these Climate Gate emails and not start rethinking their unwavering belief in these "scientists". Unreal.

[RickBradford]

I'm amazed people can read these Climate Gate emails and not start rethinking their unwavering belief in these "scientists". Unreal.

That's the point -- they can't bring themselves to read them, If they did,their whole psychological universe would collapse in on itself.

Greenies are supposed to be the unselfish, altruistic, honest people we rely on to speak up for the environment -- to discover that they are as greedy and dishonest as any oil compary, causes a disconnect in the Greenie brain,

[Jingthing]

Nope, we both agree we will do nothing. You think that is morally justified. I think very much not so. But we agree about what actually will be done -- nothing. I hope you're right but I sincerely think you are probably wrong about believing the denial propaganda. Which is carefully selected to influence people who want to believe there is no problem.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

Nope, we both agree we will do nothing. You think that is morally justified. I think very much not so. But we agree about what actually will be done -- nothing. I hope you're right but I sincerely think you are probably wrong about believing the denial propaganda. Which is carefully selected to influence people who want to believe there is no problem.

"Denial propaganda"?

The BBC, NYT, ABC, SMH, and plenty more having been pushing the AGW scare for all it's worth, in line with their 'progressive' agenda.

From the new Climategate-mails:

" It should be noted that we are in fact starting afresh and the plan for the first meeting is to attempt to work out what the conference programme should look like and who should be

invited to speak if we are to succeed in our aim of influencing politicians and opinion formers on this most critical of subjects.

We feel passionately about this issue, as we are sure you do too. It's very important locally, particularly with CRed just started, that climate change is taken seriously, and in time that this is reflected in local and national policy. In this, we are all working to the same end, so we hope that we can support each other in the future.

All the agit-prop is, of course, coming from the Left/Green side.

[maidu]

Ok, put aside scientists and scientific data for a moment. What about the regular people who happen to reside near arctic regions and alongside mountains.

I watch nature shows on TV, and many times (from a variety of different programs) there have been interviews with people from those regions mentioned in the previous sentence. Without exception, they're all saying that ice cover is lessening, winters are warmer, and glaciers are receding year by year - and not getting replaced. This affects ski resorts and fishing, buildings (and pipelines) built upon permafrost and a lot more. These are real people reporting issues that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. Are the global warming deniers claiming that ALL those people are lying. Why would they all lie?

So it gets back to the issue where some people acknowledge the planet is warming, but don't want to attribute it to human caused pollution. Then there are those who take a harder line: who say there is no warming trend - and use all sorts of weird 'proofs', such as culling odd phrases out of a few peoples' emails, and brandishing them as gospel proof for their denial.

This is much bigger than a few phrases lifted from a few peoples' emails. This is tangible warming trends, particularly (at this time) at the poles and in mountain ranges. I happen to strongly believe (and I'm in the majority, along with most scientists) that the warming is exacerbated by human-generated pollution - though there are other contributing factors.

[koheesti]

Ok, put aside scientists and scientific data for a moment. What about the regular people who happen to reside near arctic regions and alongside mountains.

I watch nature shows on TV, and many times (from a variety of different programs) there have been interviews with people from those regions mentioned in the previous sentence. Without exception, they're all saying that ice cover is lessening, winters are warmer, and glaciers are receding year by year - and not getting replaced. This affects ski resorts and fishing, buildings (and pipelines) built upon permafrost and a lot more. These are real people reporting issues that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. Are the global warming deniers claiming that ALL those people are lying. Why would they all lie?

Just because all the people shown in the program agree there is a problem doesn't prove that everyone thinks there is a problem. Maybe the producers already had their minds made up the direction they wanted to go and only used people who gave the answers they wanted? Sort of like those funny man-on-the-street videos where no one can find countries on a map. They don't use the people who actually know geography in the video because it would go against what they were trying to "prove".

[teatree]

Oddly, in a weird way, we are at similar places.

Not even close.

My view is that people who have shown themselves, in their professional sphere, to be dishonest, incompetent, petty, vindictive, arrogant and narcissistic, might be honest in their actual work, but it would be very unwise to bet on it.

It is much more likely that they bring those undesirable qualities directly to their work, which is therefore rendered utterly compromised. Dishonest scientists don't do honest science.

For reasons of your own, you prefer to ignore all the clearly revealed signs of dishonesty and believe these people and their conclusions.

I do not agree with that position at all.

I'm amazed people can read these Climate Gate emails and not start rethinking their unwavering belief in these "scientists". Unreal.

People have invested so much of themeselves into the whole AGW scare that they simply cannot accept that they have been suckered.

We could go through an ice age with temperatures plummeting to record lows and they would still follow whatever the mainstream threw at them. These people have their reasoning done for them, everything is automatically dowloaded whenever they tune in to CNN, read the Guardian, watch the BBC's 'Frozen Planet" or view pretty much anything available in the media.

If the mainstream says that 97% of scientists believe in AGW then that is good enough for them, no personal verification of that claim is needed.

[RickBradford]

... watch the BBC ...

And thanks to Climategate 2, we now know that the BBC was being guided by activists on all its climate coverage; staff at the University of East Anglia vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the BBC to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

"Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,' one journalist said. 'If you disagree, you're branded a loony."

This is a public broadcaster -- rotten to the core.

[teatree]

... watch the BBC ...

And thanks to Climategate 2, we now know that the BBC was being guided by activists on all its climate coverage; staff at the University of East Anglia vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the BBC to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

"Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,' one journalist said. 'If you disagree, you're branded a loony."

This is a public broadcaster -- rotten to the core.

While we're on the subject of the BBC...

(note:This story broke before the current Climategate scandal)

BBC's Mr Climate Change accepted £15,000 in grants from university rocked by global warning scandal

A senior BBC journalist accepted £15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.

Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.

Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate. The scandal erupted two years ago when emails were leaked from the Tyndall Centre’s sister department, the Climatic Research Unit at the same university.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html

[RickBradford]

Harrabin was actually on the advisory board of the Tyndall Centre between 2002 and 2005.

So a university department, well-known for its pro-AGW focus, has a BBC reporter on its advisory board, and funds to the tune of £15,000 an activist group (CMEP), founded by the same BBC reporter, whose self-admitted sole purpose is to manipulate BBC coverage of climate matters.

"Did anyone hear [skeptic] Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff [stott pwned Houghton] really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source." - Mike Hulme, director of Tyndall.

And there are still people out there who believe this is correct and proper procedure.

[chuckd]

Ok, put aside scientists and scientific data for a moment. What about the regular people who happen to reside near arctic regions and alongside mountains.

I watch nature shows on TV, and many times (from a variety of different programs) there have been interviews with people from those regions mentioned in the previous sentence. Without exception, they're all saying that ice cover is lessening, winters are warmer, and glaciers are receding year by year - and not getting replaced. This affects ski resorts and fishing, buildings (and pipelines) built upon permafrost and a lot more. These are real people reporting issues that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. Are the global warming deniers claiming that ALL those people are lying. Why would they all lie?

So it gets back to the issue where some people acknowledge the planet is warming, but don't want to attribute it to human caused pollution. Then there are those who take a harder line: who say there is no warming trend - and use all sorts of weird 'proofs', such as culling odd phrases out of a few peoples' emails, and brandishing them as gospel proof for their denial.

This is much bigger than a few phrases lifted from a few peoples' emails. This is tangible warming trends, particularly (at this time) at the poles and in mountain ranges. I happen to strongly believe (and I'm in the majority, along with most scientists) that the warming is exacerbated by human-generated pollution - though there are other contributing factors.

National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery and Animal Planet are all advocates of the global warming hoax.

You won't see any differing opinions on any of their shows. I just tune them out when they start beating the drum.

[Scott]

It might not hurt posters to actually read the OP. The last paragraph says:

"Now more than ever before, we need to understand the complex, and sometimes unexpected, interactions between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth's biosphere and oceans," said Jarraud. The WMO report released on Monday shows greenhouse gas concentrations have now exceeded the worst case scenarios of a United Nations expert climate panel in 2001.

This article talks about the changes in the concentration of certain gases. It is really quite silent on the subject of climate change and/or global warming. Again "....we need to understand the complex...."

[RickBradford]

^^^

This article talks about the changes in the concentration of certain gases. It is really quite silent on the subject of climate change and/or global warming.

Really?

Pars 2 & 3 of the OP read as follows:.

Between 1990 and 2010, the WMO recorded a 29 percent increase in radiative forcing - the warming effect on our climate system - from greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide accounted for 80 percent of this increase, according to the WMO's Greenhouse Gas Bulletin

"The atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases due to human activities has yet again reached record levels since pre-industrial time," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. "Even if we managed to halt our greenhouse gas emissions today - and this is far from the case - they would continue to linger in the atmosphere for decades to come and so continue to affect the delicate balance of our living planet and our climate."

I think it's fairly clear what is being discussed.