Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[teatree]

How did we get to a point where life sustaining carbon is more feared than radiation?

Not to mention more feared than water/soil pollution, GMO, and abject poverty brought on by carbon taxes/rationing.

[teatree]

How did we get to a point where life sustaining carbon is more feared than radiation?

Many cities are killing their inhabitants with pollution caused by burning fossil fuel.

The US navy has been using nuclear powered vessels for donkey's years without killing anyone from radiation ( that I know of ). If well built and maintained nuclear reactors were killing people on their ships, we would have heard about it by now ( Wikileaks ).

The pollution in US cities is from carbon MONoxide not carbon DIoxide.

[Pimay1]

If anyone from the UN says anything concerning anything it is a laugh a minute. These people are in it for the money and that is that.

[maidu]

Have you noticed how BIG American cars are? They haven't learned a thing about the impact of cars on the environment, and I doubt the CEO of GM cares anyway.

True. GM and the others chose to make SUV's, and then they were headed for bankruptcy in 2008. They had to get bailed out by the US Feds. They also recalled (and destroyed) all their leased electric/battery cars (EV1's) even though car owners loved them. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been making crappy business decisions for decades. Yet they know they're 'too big to fail' and the Feds will bail them out, whenever their bad decisions come up and bite them on the ass.

Edited December 27, 2012 by maidu

[chuckd]

Have you noticed how BIG American cars are? They haven't learned a thing about the impact of cars on the environment, and I doubt the CEO of GM cares anyway.

True. GM and the others chose to make SUV's, and then they were headed for bankruptcy in 2008. They had to get bailed out by the US Feds. They also recalled (and destroyed) all their leased electric/battery cars (EV1's) even though car owners loved them. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been making crappy business decisions for decades. Yet they know they're 'too big to fail' and the Feds will bail them out, whenever their bad decisions come up and bite them on the ass.

Only GM and Chrysler were bailed out by the Obama administration.

Ford did not ask for nor did they receive bail out money.

[thaibeachlovers]

Have you noticed how BIG American cars are? They haven't learned a thing about the impact of cars on the environment, and I doubt the CEO of GM cares anyway.

True. GM and the others chose to make SUV's, and then they were headed for bankruptcy in 2008. They had to get bailed out by the US Feds. They also recalled (and destroyed) all their leased electric/battery cars (EV1's) even though car owners loved them. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been making crappy business decisions for decades. Yet they know they're 'too big to fail' and the Feds will bail them out, whenever their bad decisions come up and bite them on the ass.

Only GM and Chrysler were bailed out by the Obama administration.

Ford did not ask for nor did they receive bail out money.

Ford makes excellent small cars for sale in other countries. I wonder if they are available in the US?

GM also does under the name Holden in Australia/ New Zealand.

[Potosi]

The pollution in US cities is from carbon MONoxide not carbon DIoxide.

Neither of them on its own, the concentrations in open air are too low to be dangerous. Monoxide is part of the reactions that form nitrogen oxides and ozone at ground level, though, that's the stuff that makes smog. Along with dust, in particular from Diesel engines.

I read that Tesla now makes a four door car with a range of about 500km. With the fun and power of a Porsche. Not cheap, but cheaper than a Porsche.

[maidu]

Of the world's 20 most polluted cities, 16 are in China. Luckily for Thailand, it's south of China, so not downwind (as Japan is). Even so, Thailand is working diligently to produce more than its share of smog and smoke pollution. What is it about Asians (besides their giant and unabating population growths) which inure them to giving a crap about the environment?

Whoa, I just googled the above topic, and found the 'most polluted city' is Ahvaz, Iran. It bumped China's Linfen off the top spot.

Edited December 29, 2012 by maidu

[RickBradford]

What is it about Asians .... which inure them to giving a crap about the environment?

Principally, the fact that environment awareness is a luxury, in the sense that a society needs to have reached a certain level of wealth before it starts worrying about the environment. And it's not just Asians.

If most of the citizens make their living grubbing around in the dirt trying to grow food to stay alive, you can bet that CO2 levels, global biodiversity, or even airborne particulates, are very low on their list of priorities.

It's only when a society hits a level you could call 'middle-class' do significant numbers of people start to worry about their environment.

Thus the residents of Seattle worry more about their environment than do the people of Naples, and the people of Naples worry more about their environment than do the people of Lagos, Nigeria. There is a direct correlation between a society's wealth and its concern for the environment.

Thus there is a strong line of argument that says the best thing for the global environment would be to make as many people in the developing world wealthy to the point where they start to care for the environment (as well as having less children).

Unfortunately, it is exactly that path to development that the Green movement worldwide is determined to block, with its insistence that the Third World adopt absurd and expensive 'low-carbon renewable energy' solutions.

Nigerians and Indians don't want fancy wind turbines, they want and need cheap, reliable electricity, and that means fossil fuels.

[thaibeachlovers]

What is it about Asians .... which inure them to giving a crap about the environment?

Principally, the fact that environment awareness is a luxury, in the sense that a society needs to have reached a certain level of wealth before it starts worrying about the environment. And it's not just Asians.

If most of the citizens make their living grubbing around in the dirt trying to grow food to stay alive, you can bet that CO2 levels, global biodiversity, or even airborne particulates, are very low on their list of priorities.

It's only when a society hits a level you could call 'middle-class' do significant numbers of people start to worry about their environment.

Thus the residents of Seattle worry more about their environment than do the people of Naples, and the people of Naples worry more about their environment than do the people of Lagos, Nigeria. There is a direct correlation between a society's wealth and its concern for the environment.

Thus there is a strong line of argument that says the best thing for the global environment would be to make as many people in the developing world wealthy to the point where they start to care for the environment (as well as having less children).

Unfortunately, it is exactly that path to development that the Green movement worldwide is determined to block, with its insistence that the Third World adopt absurd and expensive 'low-carbon renewable energy' solutions.

Nigerians and Indians don't want fancy wind turbines, they want and need cheap, reliable electricity, and that means fossil fuels.

<the best thing for the global environment would be to make as many people in the developing world wealthy>

Unfortunately, when people become wealthy the first thing they buy is a car, followed by lots of electrical appliances. All of which increase fossil fuel use.

The day all cars are electric and ALL power generation is by non polluting methods I'll agree with that.

Edited December 29, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[RickBradford]

The day all cars are electric and ALL power generation is by non polluting methods I'll agree with that.

i.e. never.

All methods of power generation are polluting in some way. For example, if you regard wind power as non-polluting, you should take your next holiday in Baotou, China, or try and get a night's sleep within one kilometre of a wind farm. Solar panels contain lead and cadmium and the manufacturing process produces toxic by-products such as silicon tetrachloride.

Your preferred policy of preventing Third World development (known as the I'm-Alright-Jack policy) will see global population rising unchecked, increasing pressure on food stocks, water supplies, land, and generally contributing to instability all round.

It will one day become difficult to quarantine these problems from spilling over into the leafy suburbs of the affluent West.

Those who see world population as the main problem humanity faces would shudder at your idea of keeping the Third World in its current miserable undeveloped state.

[thaibeachlovers]

The day all cars are electric and ALL power generation is by non polluting methods I'll agree with that.

i.e. never.

All methods of power generation are polluting in some way. For example, if you regard wind power as non-polluting, you should take your next holiday in Baotou, China, or try and get a night's sleep within one kilometre of a wind farm. Solar panels contain lead and cadmium and the manufacturing process produces toxic by-products such as silicon tetrachloride.

Your preferred policy of preventing Third World development (known as the I'm-Alright-Jack policy) will see global population rising unchecked, increasing pressure on food stocks, water supplies, land, and generally contributing to instability all round.

It will one day become difficult to quarantine these problems from spilling over into the leafy suburbs of the affluent West.

Those who see world population as the main problem humanity faces would shudder at your idea of keeping the Third World in its current miserable undeveloped state.

I don't agree that I said the 3rd world should remain undeveloped ( Thailand is regarded as third world by some ), merely not wealthy enough to buy cars for everyone and a tv in every room, till there is the technology to produce electricity without as much pollution as at present. It's time to develop a different way of living that raises everyone to a better life.

However, though I don't feel inclined to state it in every post I make, I also want the so called first world to stop consuming so much.

Why can't we all live near enough to our work to walk there ( I did in London ), why can't we all use public transport in cities ( I did ) and large towns, why do we need a tv as big as the wall, and one in every room, why do we need a 4x4 to take the kids to school- for that matter, why do we have to take the kids to school in a car at all, what's wrong with a school bus? The list is endless, and I'm sure you get my drift.

That the so called first world consumes vastly more per head of population than the so called third world is unsustainable, and needs to change.

I appreciate what you are saying, but if everyone on the planet consumes as much as the so called first world, all the resources will be exhausted quickly and billions will die.

So what's YOUR solution?

BTW I do consider overpopulation as the main problem facing humanity, however, Gaia will sort that, and not in a nice way.

Edited December 29, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[RickBradford]

^^^

I agree with much that you say.

But when you start talking about "solutions", you first must answer a key question: Is your "solution" going to be imposed, if necessary, by force? (The kinder term for this is "social engineering" -- such as China's one-child policy, Singapore's "Stop at Two", which was so successful that they had to change it into "Have Three If you Can Afford Them")

If so, you are not only adopting for yourself the moral right to tell everyone else what to do and what to have, but you are giving yourself enormous powers of life and death, especially over the world's poorest (health care being a key indicator of development).

And, of course, there will never be enough agreement across the world to make any such anti-development policies effective. After all,we've just witnessed the enormous expense of the 18th UN gabfest on climate change, and even Green organisations will admit that nothing has changed in terms of practical effect on climate since the very first conference. Top-down imposed planetary solutions won't work, and trying them wastes enormous amounts of resources.

If people want cars, let them have cars; if we run out of oil or steel, they will be automatically priced out of the market, until some bright spark invents a car made out of eucalyptus leaves which runs on seaweed. I have considerable respect for the adaptability, survival instinct and cunning of Homo sapiens. if they are left free to make their own decisions.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience - CS Lewis.

Edited December 29, 2012 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

^^^

I agree with much that you say.

But when you start talking about "solutions", you first must answer a key question: Is your "solution" going to be imposed, if necessary, by force? (The kinder term for this is "social engineering" -- such as China's one-child policy, Singapore's "Stop at Two", which was so successful that they had to change it into "Have Three If you Can Afford Them")

If so, you are not only adopting for yourself the moral right to tell everyone else what to do and what to have, but you are giving yourself enormous powers of life and death, especially over the world's poorest (health care being a key indicator of development).

And, of course, there will never be enough agreement across the world to make any such anti-development policies effective. After all,we've just witnessed the enormous expense of the 18th UN gabfest on climate change, and even Green organisations will admit that nothing has changed in terms of practical effect on climate. Top-down imposed planetary solutions won't work.

If people want cars, let them have cars; if we run out of oil or steel, they will be automatically priced out of the market, until some bright spark invents a car made out of eucalyptus leaves which runs on seaweed. I have considerable respect for the adaptability, survival instinct and cunning of Homo sapiens. if they are left free to make their own decisions.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience - CS Lewis.

Yes. that is the conundrum we face.

In the event that seaweed powered cars do not eventuate in time, because I have no doubt that my solution could NOT be imposed without force, it may be that humanity only survives through a dictatorship of some sort.

In the event that there is no human solution, I believe Gaia will sort us, and not in a pleasant way at all. After all, humans have no more right to exist on planet earth than the dinosaurs did.

What is really sad, is that viable technologies exist to replace oil as a motor/ generating fuel ( hydrogen/ algae etc ), but for all the usual reasons, they are not being developed fast enough.

[thaibeachlovers]

I just looked at the thread about "bus, train stations jammed". 10 mile tailbacks, gridlock! How much fuel wasted? This sort of thing is surely unsustainable.

I guess there is no easy answer, but one must be found if our way of life is to endure.

[RickBradford]

I guess there is no easy answer, but one must be found if our way of life is to endure.

And I'm pretty sure that the answer will never be found by committees, NGOs, governments, the EU or any UN body issuing pronouncements from on high.

After all, it's not in their interest to solve problems:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

[RickBradford]

Bad news on the Arctic melting and sea-level rise front:

Arctic climate's alarming change

LOS ANGELES - A warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, and if the Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in lowlands along the shores would be inundated, said Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist today at the University of California's Geophysical Institute.

Dr. Ahlmann added that temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900, an "enormous" rise from the scientific standpoint.

He pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along the western Spitsbergen lasted three months. Now it lasts eight months.

Taken from the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 31 May 1947, before the Great Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.

*Foreign language edited out* . (aka: We've seen it all before and we're not as smart as we thought we were)

Edited December 29, 2012 by Scott

[maidu]

All methods of power generation are polluting in some way. For example, if you regard wind power as non-polluting, you should take your next holiday in Baotou, China, or try and get a night's sleep within one kilometre of a wind farm. Solar panels contain lead and cadmium and the manufacturing process produces toxic by-products such as silicon tetrachloride.

Advocates of alternative power aren't saying the alternatives are perfect or completely toxin-free. Yet, it's relative, one technology to another. We know fossils and coal are grossly polluting and crude oil is a finite resource. Nuclear hasn't lived up to its 'free-energy' debutante claims because when things go wrong with nuclear, they can go very wrong and be massively expensive. Comparatively, concentrated solar, particularly passive arrays, are the wave of the future - but not the only sensible option.

Your preferred policy of preventing Third World development (known as the I'm-Alright-Jack policy) will see global population rising unchecked, increasing pressure on food stocks, water supplies, land, and generally contributing to instability all round.

It will one day become difficult to quarantine these problems from spilling over into the leafy suburbs of the affluent West.

Those who see world population as the main problem humanity faces would shudder at your idea of keeping the Third World in its current miserable undeveloped state.

I think we agree, there are many compound problems with overpopulation of our one species. Similar to trying to lessen the growth/impact of the Pacific Trash Vortex (by making/using less plastic), the #1 way to lessen population is to make less babies. I don't know what the average trash/per year/per person number is, but it's probably well over a ton/yr in developed countries, and not much less in developing countries like China, India, Nigeria and Thailand.

a list of the 25 most polluted places on Earth - and it's a very competitive category. If they made a list of the 10,000 most polluted places on Earth, even #10,000 would be disgustingly trashed and toxic. As a species, we're doing a horrendous job of husbandry for the planet, for ourselves, and more importantly, for the innumerable other species we share the planet with.

[Scott]

An oversized picture has been deleted. They mess up the formatting of the page and make it difficult to read or view.

[mccw]

<about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically> The really sad thing is that if they put as much effort into alternative fuels ( such as hydrogen fuel cells for cars ) as they put into developing weapons, there would be no fuel shortage and no man made climate change. I guess politicians must think killing people is more fun than motor fuel- what other explanation can there be?

I agree that alternatives must be explored and implemented. However, I'm not a fan of H fuel cells. Hydrogen has too many drawbacks and it cost more to isolate H than the rewards gotten from it. There are a slew of viable alternatives, though, and innovations are being developed week by week. A country like Thailand, though, will follow rather than be at the vanguard. There is scant little incentive, in Thailand, which encourages innovations and creative endeavors relating to science, technology, new applications, conservation, etc. Thais will continue to be 15 to 50 years behind western trends.

I think the more enlightened Thais living by the Kings sufficiency economy principles are 50-100 years ahead of the west generally. In the west no one consumes what they produce, every thing is imported and food is mass produced and delivered through "just in time" supply chains. The western population has lost almost all knowledge and skills to take care themselves.

Never mind if GW is man made or not, but for sure the planet will run out of potash etc with in 50 years at this rate leading to a collapse of modern agricultural practices and resulting food shortages , dramatic price increases and ultimately starvation and/or massive numbers falling back in to poverty. What with post peak oil and just about every other commodity the current economic system is sure to collapse with in that time scale also.

Additionally there is quite clearly more extreme weather and changing patterns / weather systems that can make problems for many. It's seems there are more and more serious earthquakes?

Ultimately in the future the survivors will need to live by the sufficiency economy model on both a personal and national level.

Technology may save the day but its not there yet. Funds would be much better spent on scientific researching than carbon taxes etc which is for sure a banker scam.

A reduced population by disaster or managed will occur , most probably by the former, but managed would be less painful but the current economic system can't function with a shrinking population. So whatever way it goes there are some unescapable huge and probably painful changes coming. The the exact timing can't be for sure but its worth preparing right now as best we can; on a personal level, no good belly aching about how useless the leaders are; we can't change them or the world but we can ready ourselves.

Edited December 31, 2012 by mccw

[thaibeachlovers]

<about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically> The really sad thing is that if they put as much effort into alternative fuels ( such as hydrogen fuel cells for cars ) as they put into developing weapons, there would be no fuel shortage and no man made climate change. I guess politicians must think killing people is more fun than motor fuel- what other explanation can there be?

I agree that alternatives must be explored and implemented. However, I'm not a fan of H fuel cells. Hydrogen has too many drawbacks and it cost more to isolate H than the rewards gotten from it. There are a slew of viable alternatives, though, and innovations are being developed week by week. A country like Thailand, though, will follow rather than be at the vanguard. There is scant little incentive, in Thailand, which encourages innovations and creative endeavors relating to science, technology, new applications, conservation, etc. Thais will continue to be 15 to 50 years behind western trends.

I think the more enlightened Thais living by the Kings sufficiency economy principles are 50-100 years ahead of the west generally. In the west no one consumes what they produce, every thing is imported and food is mass produced and delivered through "just in time" supply chains. The western population has lost almost all knowledge and skills to take care themselves.

Never mind if GW is man made or not, but for sure the planet will run out of potash etc with in 50 years at this rate leading to a collapse of modern agricultural practices and resulting food shortages , dramatic price increases and ultimately starvation and/or massive numbers falling back in to poverty. What with post peak oil and just about every other commodity the current economic system is sure to collapse with in that time scale also.

Additionally there is quite clearly more extreme weather and changing patterns / weather systems that can make problems for many. It's seems there are more and more serious earthquakes?

Ultimately in the future the survivors will need to live by the sufficiency economy model on both a personal and national level.

Technology may save the day but its not there yet. Funds would be much better spent on scientific researching than carbon taxes etc which is for sure a banker scam.

A reduced population by disaster or managed will occur , most probably by the former, but managed would be less painful but the current economic system can't function with a shrinking population. So whatever way it goes there are some unescapable huge and probably painful changes coming. The the exact timing can't be for sure but its worth preparing right now as best we can; on a personal level, no good belly aching about how useless the leaders are; we can't change them or the world but we can ready ourselves.

I agree with you. In the event of a catastrophic disaster the rich will die because they have no survival skills, while the rural poor will probably live.

[canuckamuck]

We could easily be facing an Apocalypse in the future. But it won't be caused by our use of fossil fuels. I think stupid human aggression will lead us to another global war which will make all this AGW nonsense a moot point.

In a post apocalyptic worst case scenario; the farmer types will be quickly be put to work by the more warrior types, losing all property rights in the process.

The techno dependent city dwellers with limited resources will be the most useless. Many rich people will find ways to buy protection. Tribal systems would quickly develop. Feminism will be quickly forgotten; as will democracy and any types of liberal socialism.

Those living in remote regions and have some basic survival skills will find their lives change the least.

[maidu]

We could easily be facing an Apocalypse in the future. But it won't be caused by our use of fossil fuels. I think stupid human aggression will lead us to another global war which will make all this AGW nonsense a moot point.

In a post apocalyptic worst case scenario; the farmer types will be quickly be put to work by the more warrior types, losing all property rights in the process.

The techno dependent city dwellers with limited resources will be the most useless. Many rich people will find ways to buy protection. Tribal systems would quickly develop. Feminism will be quickly forgotten; as will democracy and any types of liberal socialism.

Those living in remote regions and have some basic survival skills will find their lives change the least.

Interesting. We've had precedence aplenty in the prior century. The most warring century, in terms of numbers killed, than any previous. Even so, probably more people killed by their own countrymen, than in wars. Either way, the planet will continue warming, and seas rising - which will exacerbate things. As mentioned, those who are relatively self-sufficient and far away from cities and teeming masses - will likely fare better. Siberia and parts of Canada come to mind, because they're also relatively cold (now) and not as prone to flooding as coastal regions - plus they have plenty of clean water..

I think, if we had the convenience of a crystal ball, some of the best places to reside in 200 years would be the the two mentioned above, and others such as Tasmania, NZ's south island, Scandinavia, Alaska and NW USA.

[RickBradford]

Today is a day to be optimistic -- we finally wave good-bye and good riddance to the absurdity that was the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, came into force in 2005 with the aim of creating a 5% cut in CO2 emissions by today, instead of which we have seen a 58% increase.

The big success in cutting emissions has come in the US, which never ratified Kyoto, and has come because it has achieved a cost-effective switch from coal to gas for baseload power.

There could hardly be a better example of how badly a nanny-state unfree market operates.

Another thing to be thankful for is that despite the huge rise in emissions, the world has not got any hotter over the past 16 years, which sends the IPCC's alarmist forecasts packing (which, luckily, the IPCC itself has conceded), along with all the other catastrophic visions which piggyback off a much warmer world.

[Potosi]

I agree with you. Why give a crap about the next generations, we want a comfortable life, and not miss a thing. Let's phrase some euphonic nonsense, and ignore the data. Ignorance is strenght, after all. The US generated 1,594,000 gigawatt hours from coal in 1990, and 1,563,298 gigawatt hours in 2012, but as you say, it achieved the switch from coal to gas for baseload power, and that proves the superiority of the free market over the nanny state.

[chuckd]

I agree with you. Why give a crap about the next generations, we want a comfortable life, and not miss a thing. Let's phrase some euphonic nonsense, and ignore the data. Ignorance is strenght, after all. The US generated 1,594,000 gigawatt hours from coal in 1990, and 1,563,298 gigawatt hours in 2012, but as you say, it achieved the switch from coal to gas for baseload power, and that proves the superiority of the free market over the nanny state.

The US population in 1990 was 248.71 million.

The US population in 2012 is 313.85 million.

An increase in the population of some 65 million would necessitate some increased energy requirements.

[Potosi]

Certainly. I'm sure the original 249 million increased their consumption by more than a mere 25%, which was the growth of population. Life is all about consuming more and more, isn't it? Thank God there is natural gas which doesn't produce greenhouse gases when burned, and is an inexhaustible resource.

[maidu]

Another thing to be thankful for is that despite the huge rise in emissions, the world has not got any hotter over the past 16 years, which sends the IPCC's alarmist forecasts packing (which, luckily, the IPCC itself has conceded), along with all the other catastrophic visions which piggyback off a much warmer world.

I recall reading in earlier posts that RichBradford agrees world temperatures are increasing. Now, it appears he doesn't think so. Which is it?

Referring to the IPCC (which appears to be very conservative in its assessments), the text below are excerpts from a recent summary speech by its chairman:

"Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea level rise will affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations."

"Several abrupt and irreversible impacts were also highlighted in the AR4. Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines, and inundation of low lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands."

"Approximately 20 to 30 per cent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C above the 1980- 1999 temperature. As global average temperature increase exceeds 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions ranging from 40 to 70 per cent of species assessed around the globe."

"It has found on the basis of evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes, that it is very likely there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights."

"There is medium confidence of a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia."

STATEMENT OF DR. R. K. PACHAURI, CHAIRMAN,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

AT THE EIGHTEENTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES, DOHA, November 28, 2012

Maidu continues: A more direct and accurate assessment of what degree the Earth is warming can be found at this US government site and hundreds of other weather-related sites. .

[canuckamuck]

Interesting projections Maidu, but notice they are based on the global temperature rising between 1.5 to 3.5 degrees C in the next 100 years. When even progressive sites report in the last 100 years an increase of only 0.74 degrees. And that increase can clearly be seen as normal recovery from the Earth's last major cooling.

[RickBradford]

I recall reading in earlier posts that RichBradford agrees world temperatures are increasing. Now, it appears he doesn't think so. Which is it?

The world has warmed gently over the past 100 years (by 0.7 - 0.8 degrees or so in total). It has not warmed at all over the past 16 years, despite all of the IPCC models predicting ever-increasing temperature rises over this period.

As the great Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, what his name is; if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

You do your cause no good service by quoting as your sole authority Dr Rajendra Pachauri, a man so thoroughly compromised that even other members of the IPCC (including Greenpeace) have asked him to resign. The man is a politician, pure and simple, protecting his interests, which include leading The Energy Research Institute (Teri), a think-tank promoting "sustainable development."

This is the man who publicly vilified as "voodoo science" the work of glaciologist Dr Vijay Raina, who had criticised the IPCC's statement that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. It turned out that Raina was right, it was the IPCC that was producing voodoo science, about which Pachauri then said he had "absolutely no responsibility". Pachauri's statements aren't even taken seriously by his own people.

The problem with the IPCC's predictions is that they come from models built on models, which have to be laboriously tweaked before they can even simulate the past, let alone predict the future. They do not accord with reality as measured by experiment, and their value should be assessed on that basis alone.

Edited January 2, 2013 by RickBradford