How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:40 pm

AN URGENT WARNING ON POSSIBLE COLLAPSE OF THE N. ATLANTIC CONVEYOR FROM IRELAND

Stan Nangle, a friend and member of the Irish Greens, has just sent me the following link showing that apparently the North Atlantic Conveyor belt has collapsed. That's the only thing that makes living in Europe possible. There was a lot of buzz about this in 2003-2004 (I think) when a DoD report was released warning that such an event was possible, even likely, as a result of global warming. Those stories were clear and vitually unanimous that such a collapse would lead to a near-instant ice age for most of Europe. The fact that Ireland (and the rest of Europe) is having its coldest winter in a hundred years makes this a true emergency to evaluate. I don't have time to do this but thankfully I'm not the only map maker here any more.

The DoD stories will be easy enough to find for old hands. Most will remember them. If those stories then were accurate (as present circumstances suggest), then Haiti just became a minor traffic accident. But we have to be very thorough.

1. Find an analyze the DoD stories.
2. Confrm that the map below is accurate.
3. Is this a temporary condition? Has this happened before and then quickly reversed or restored?
4. What scenarios/responses have been evaluated and proposed if this occurred?

If I'm correct about the Dod stories then this map is very frightening. As I recall, there were some stories from 03 or 04 that even showed what this map shows right now. I think the first question to ask is whether this is temporary or not. It should be asked with the utmost urgency.

http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/

MCR
**********************************************************************

Is Today the Day After Tomorrow?

Jenna Orkin

The North Atlantic Conveyor has attracted the attention of a broad spectrum of venues, from the lefty Monthly Review to Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia.

Preliminary research yields:

"It is believed that North Atlantic Deep Water formation has been dramatically reduced at times during the past (such as during the Younger Dryas or during Heinrich events), and that this might correlate with a decrease in the strength of the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic drift, in turn cooling the climate of northwestern Europe." (wikipedia)

[url=http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:8AvIy1fDOUkJ:www.monthlyreview.org/0504editors.htm+%22north+atlantic+conveyor%22+%22department+of+defense%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us] “If a shutdown were to happen soon,” Richard Alley, who chaired the scientific team releasing the National Academy of Sciences study, observed in The Two-Mile Time Machine, “it could produce a large event, perhaps almost as large as the Younger Dryas, dropping northern temperatures and spreading droughts far larger than the changes that have affected humans through recorded history, and perhaps speeding warming in the far south. The end of humanity? No. An uncomfortable time for humanity? Yes.”
[/url]
William Patterson of Saskatchewan University believes the mini Ice Age could take place in a matter of months, a Day After Tomorrow scenario.

According to The Monthly Reivew, in "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security" Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall argue that "rather than falling first and foremost on the global South the direct effects of a shutdown of the thermohaline conveyor would bear down on the global North—specifically those countries bordering the North Atlantic...In their scenario a “thermohaline circulation collapse” causes a drop in average surface temperature in northern Europe of up to 3.3°C (6°F) along with severe temperature drops throughout the North Atlantic, lasting about a century. Colder temperatures, wind and dryness in the global North are accompanied by increased warmth and drought in much of the rest of the world."

http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... se-of.html
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:17 pm

Those are surface temp readings.

The warm water travels deep and upwells in the far North doesn't it?

So it shouldn't show on surface temp readings.

tho it might show an area in the North thats warmer than the surrounding surfaces.... I dunno, you'd have to compare it to years ago, when the conveyor was known to be active.

It is something I have wondered about tho.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby elfismiles » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:29 am


Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Related Links

* UN's rogue glacier claim 'just one page in report'
* UN climate chief 'got grants through bogus claims'

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.

Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”

Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.

“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 009081.ece

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:48 am

A curious comment:

"“within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened”

Hmm… I heard no mention of Halcrow Consulting anywhere in the ‘honest and objective assessment of what had happened’.

“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.”

From the World Wildlife Fund web site:

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/ab ... cientists/

Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel (SAP)

Prof. Dr Murari Lal, specialises in global and regional climate variability, scenario development, regional environmental change, … ecosystem modeling, regional adaptation & mitigation potential, water resource management; Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India

Did you catch that:

Carbon Trading is part of the Environment Division, now that is a surprise.

“Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”
See also:

http://www.halcrow.com/html/documents/p ... ochure.pdf

From the CRUs own website we know the World Wildlife Fund funds the CRU.
bottom of this page:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history

I wonder where a charity gets the money to fund climate research.

The WWF funds the CRU

Murari Lal->WWF->CRU
Murari Lal-> Halcrow Consulting->Carbon Trading

How about we skip the pawn:

Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPCC

Simplifing..

Carbon Trading->WWF->CRU->IPCC
Carbon Trading->WWF->IPCC
Carbon Trading->IPCC

Carbon Trading->IPCC->Carbon Trading

or

Carbon Trading->Pachauri->Carbon Trading

An employee of a Carbon Trading department, working for the World Wildlife Fund, submitting bogus content to the IPCC, just to scare people into implementing Carbon Trading.

Does that look like a mistake to you?"
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:51 am

I had an email exchange with Murari lal years ago in late 2002. After he claimed that atmospheric aerosol pollution caused by the invasion of Afghanistan had contributed to India's drought. He knows as much about whats going on in the atmosphere as anyone I have ever communicated with.

No doubt you are imagining him making the decisions he made as some Machiavellian plot, but that's probably not quite accurate. The guy is actually a scientist, not a bureaucrat, and from my exchange with him I do remember his frustration at government/establishment stupidity re any number of complex things.

Its hardly surprising that when a frustrated scientist tries to something political he just fucks it up completely. Unfortunately this debate has become way to political. Everything that each side says is simplistic propaganda cos the people they are trying to convince can't be bothered to make sense of the actual science.

BTW Thats not an endorsement of Carbon Trading, which is a fucking joke.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 23 » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:43 pm

When I went to school, I remember being informed that the scientific method consists of: 1) form a hypothesis, and; 2) attempt to disprove it.

When did it become: 1) form a hypothesis, and; 2) attempt to prove it?
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:53 pm

It didn't ...

But according to strict scientific method AGW can't be proved.

Because there is no control earth to compare our results with.

So the whole point with AGW debate is to provide scientific explanations (that have been provable according to scientific method) that can show that AGW is happening without having to refer to a non existent control.

Of course this whole thing would disappear in a minute if someone could disprove the science that is being relied on to claim AGW is happeneing. So far this hasn't actually happened, and so we have this debate.

The whole point is the AGW "believers" are saying "You can't prove us wrong." And as of yet no one has.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:46 pm

New paper in Nature on CO2 amplification: “it’s less than we thought”.

"The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming."

The whole point is the AGW "believers" are saying "You can't prove us wrong." And as of yet no one has.

But according to strict scientific method AGW can't be proved.

:shrug:
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:54 pm

tazmic wrote:New paper in Nature on CO2 amplification: “it’s less than we thought”.

"The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming."

The whole point is the AGW "believers" are saying "You can't prove us wrong." And as of yet no one has.

But according to strict scientific method AGW can't be proved.

:shrug:


According to strict scientific method AGW can be disproved. (But not proved... if any of the science that supports AGW is shown to be wrong then AGW will be disproven, and the whole thing will disappear into history. As of yet no one has shown the science to be wrong.)

That paper seems to imply that the feedback loops caused by CO2 are not as serious as previously thought, and that the actual chances of runaway warming are far less than previously thought. Thats great, if it turns out to be true.

And it actually makes alot of sense.

It doesn't seem to be disproving the basics of AGW, tho just some of the panicky predictions.

Which has to be a good thing. (Of course it doesn't address other feedback issues so ...)

The paper worked on comparing tree rings to CO2 in ice ... one of the flaws in this methodology is that it assumes tree rings are a reflection of temperature.

I thought tree rings were a reflection of light absorption by chlorophyll, which is a different thing. Global temp and light absorption can both be influenced by atmospheric aerosol concentration. So its a potentially flawed methodology (imo), but hopefully that issue will be addressed. (ie there is a correlation between tree rings and co2, but its not necessarily dependant on the same causation.

Perhaps this will even lead to the disproving of AGW (tho at this point I doubt it) which would be good cos there are plenty of other more serious environmental concerns (even if worst case AGW predictions were true) that we need to deal with now. As no doubt people on this website would know.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:43 pm

Good grief! :shock: ....Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilising force

The Pentagon will for the first time rank global warming as a destabilising force, adding fuel to conflict and putting US troops at risk around the world, in a major strategy review to be presented to Congress tomorrow.

-snip-

The CIA late last year established a centre to collect intelligence on climate change. Earlier this month, CIA officials sent emails to environmental experts in Washington seeking their views on climate change impacts around the world, and how the agency could keep tabs on what actions countries were taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Well at least now the CIA/Pentagon and Osama Bin Laden are both in agreement on Climate Change. Perhaps the old team can get together again. :)
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:40 am

Perhaps, in this admission of faulty science in the climate change debate on the part of the author, an olive branch is being offered to the skeptics,...Faulty science risks obscuring 'larger truth' of climate change

Peace... :lovehearts:
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:57 am

Ultimately all science is faulty on some level, thats why its always changing, and refining its pov. I doubt it'll ever show that human activity and CO2 have no effect on changing the amount of energy that remains trapped in the earths systems, which is what anthropogenic global warming means, on a practical level. it might tho, if it does I'll admit I'm wrong.

Look all someone has to do is show conclusively that anthropogenic Co2 emissions are not having a significant effect on the current rate of global warming (specifically due to radiative forcing) and this whole debate is over. Thats all there is to it.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:45 am

Ultimately all science is faulty on some level


No Joe. All models are specific to their context, the interpretation of which may be contentious.

thats why its always changing, and refining its pov.


Science isn't changing. Theories may be refined, or even junked, usually patched up, as reality, through better observation or experimental deduction, gets more demanding or revealing.

I doubt it'll ever show that human activity and CO2 have no effect on changing the amount of energy that remains trapped in the earths systems,


No one here is arguing this Joe. How many times does this need to be said?

Look all someone has to do is show conclusively that anthropogenic Co2 emissions are not having a significant effect on the current rate of global warming (specifically due to radiative forcing) and this whole debate is over.


Are you reading this thread Joe?

new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought


Thats all there is to it.


If you say so Joe. Personally, I think global warming is due to bad thoughts. If you can conclusively prove this not to be the case, then I might start to question my belief in the flying spaghetti monster.
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby nathan28 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:24 am

What Joe said. This isn't really a question about science. It's about putting poison shit into the air. It's about downstream costs and externalization. If you think that it doesn't matter, look up freaking cancer rates in parts of Long Island. This is about who will bear the weight for policy decisions and what policy decisions get made. And strangely enough, it's become the popular counter-reality face to what is a policy debate that I suspect disbelievers and members of the reality-based community could actually come to agree on. Because a bunch of lower-muddle-class losers with "You can pry my gas motor out of my cold dead hands" are wrong in particulars but essentially right: it's not an issue that will be resolved through the creation of a green upper-middle class consumer market category, where somehow, buying a car loaded down with toxic shit mined out of the ground by Third World Citizens who drink the water that flows out of that cesspool they just mined, how, somehow, that's more green than warming up the glowplugs on your diesel truck. It's about an attempt to squeeze out ROI on hundred-year-old tech without upgrading before the last possible minute, everyone else be damned. It's about the industrial and infrastructure regimes, which has exactly jack shit to do with compact fluorescent light bulbs.

It's a fucking distraction.
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:41 am

It's a fucking distraction.


What is? Global warming, or your post.
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 guests