Xtra News Community 2

General Category => General Forum => Topic started by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:42:31 pm



Title: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:42:31 pm
Warming catches up with big glaciers

By RUTH LAUGESEN - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 18 November 2007

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming001.jpg)

DISAPPEARING ICE: The Tasman Glacier, the biggest of New Zealand's twelve largest
glaciers, all of which are rapidly shrinking in response to regional climate warming.


Climate change is making New Zealand's biggest glaciers melt twice as quickly as comparable ice masses overseas, according to research released today.

The Southern Alps' 12 biggest glaciers had crossed a "tipping point" into faster melting as they respond to regional warming, said National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research principal scientist Jim Salinger.

"These have now passed a threshold, where the ice is collapsing, rapidly expanding lakes at the foot of the glaciers," he said.

"It is not yet clear whether the glaciers will disappear completely with future warming, but they are set to shrink further as they adjust to today's climate."

The findings come as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases a synthesis report in Valencia today on climate change, its likely impacts, and what can be done to mitigate it or adapt to it.

The report, which builds on the findings of three IPCC reports this year, will arm policymakers as they go into the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali next month. Those talks will begin work on an international agreement for responding to climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

The Niwa research, which is the first long-term study of ice mass in the Southern Alps, found 5.8cukm of ice had been lost in the past 20 years. That was almost 11% of the total ice mass. More than 90% of this loss was from the 12 largest glaciers.

Those glaciers Tasman, Godley, Murchison, Classen, Mueller, Hooker, Ramsay, Volta/Therma, La Perouse, Balfour, Grey, and Maud had lost an average of 22m in ice thickness since 1986. In comparison, figures from the World Glacier Monitoring Service found that a sample of large world glaciers had lost an average of 9.6m in ice thickness since 1980.

Smaller glaciers, having rapidly adjusted to regional warming earlier, had not receded much in the past 20 years or in a few cases have slightly advanced. They include two well-known West Coast glaciers, the Fox and the Franz Josef.

Salinger said the glaciers overseas had responded more quickly to rising temperatures, and had thus already experienced substantial melting. New Zealand mean air temperatures have risen 0.4C since 1950 but the big glaciers here would probably not disappear any sooner than those overseas because they had taken longer to respond to warmer temperatures typically being covered in an insulating blanket of thick rock debris.

However, Salinger says, "it is already clear that they will not return to their earlier lengths without extraordinary cooling of the climate because the large lakes now block their advance".

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4277239a6442.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:43:05 pm
Shrinking footprints

The Press | Saturday, 26 January 2008

The environmental challenges facing the world may seem overwhelming. JOHN McCRONE meets some people who are undaunted by the seeming hopelessness of responding as individuals.

The view from inside and outside a Hummer is very different. Inside is a driver feeling pride in the "power, capability, attitude, and authenticity" of a massive, military-style, 44 Yank tank.

But outside is a public now almost universally thinking "there goes a gas guzzling dickhead" says Carlin Archer, of the Christchurch eco-living webguide, ecobob. com.

"The driver's saying, ‘look at me. Aren't I great? I can afford to waste huge amounts of fuel’."

For many Kiwis, 2007 proved to be a tipping point. At least that is what those working at the grassroots of sustainable living are saying they have seen.

"People have woken up and want to know what they can do," says Rhys Taylor, national co-ordinator of the Sustainable Living Programme. "They certainly saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. But they say it is actually something that's been nagging away at the back of their minds for a long time. Now they are ready to act."

Taylor says for an old greenie like himself, the swiftness of the mood change has been a surprise. For decades society seemed to be going only one way - houses got bigger, cars faster, the travel more exotic. For example, he can remember when a room had one plug point. A newly built home could now have six to a room. And there will be something plugged into each of them. "If we talk about our carbon footprint, we can see it has been literally expanding."

People have got used to consuming more stuff every year. And even if it is only 2 or 3 per cent extra, it adds up. Suddenly people are looking around and realising it is not just their bodies that have grown flabby, says Taylor. Their lifestyle feels bloated, heavy-footed. There is a desire to put the process in reverse and start shedding the kilos again.

The question is how to reorganise their lives? No-one wants to go back to the past, to give up on luxury and fun. So what is the mainstream response going to be? What is the blueprint for a sustainable future?

Archer seems as much as anyone the face of the new environmentalism. EcoBob stands for "best of both" - keep your lifestyle, but also keep the world.

Running a Christchurch website development company with his brother, Daniel, Archer never planned to be a sustainability activist. After returning from London four years ago, he had the dream of using family land near Woodend to build an ecologically-sound home for him and his South African girlfriend. In fact, it could become an eco-commune because his brother, sister, parents and a few friends want to build there too.

There is no intention to stint. "An eco-home doesn't have to be a hippy hovel," Archer says. It is just a matter of intelligent design - putting in all the energy-saving features, and using low-environmental-impact materials, that traditional suburban homes still ignore.

But Archer found it a struggle to gather the names of likely builders and architects, or suppliers of solar panels, energy-efficient appliances and other eco-home technology. So he set up a website to share practical information with others and found that instead of hundreds of visitors, he was getting thousands a day.

The side project has grown to the point that it pays for itself and could become a full-time business.

Archer agrees 2007 marked an attitude change. A few years back, many of his friends would rib him. "I was known as the eco man. They would joke about coming over to my place and tipping Roundup on the garden because I wasn't pulling up the weeds."

Now there is more likely to be interest than derision. People want to hear what kind of changes will be seen if sustainable thinking moves into the mainstream.

Archer details the lifestyle alterations he has made - and apologises for the fact there is a way to go.

Living and working in a rented house high on the hill in Mount Pleasant while he plans his eco-house, Archer says one of his commitments is to go zero waste.

So he now has to remember to take his cloth bags to the supermarket. He queues for meat at the counter to avoid the tray packs. He tries to side-step any packaging which cannot be recycled. "It's a bit irritating when I put my hand out for a juice I'd like, but then have to take something else in a bottle that can be recycled," Archer confesses.

Archer says none of the changes are extreme. It is simply a question of being aware there are choices and then not being too embarrassed to act upon them. Steadily you build a new set of habits into your life.

He says it does not even have to be a big-bang lifestyle conversion. The flab has built up a few per cent every year. Rather than a crash diet that is hard to stick to, it is better to start slimming down a few per cent every year. If this becomes a mainstream attitude, the impact would be significant.

A cross in Lyttelton, there is another grassroots effort to understand what sustainability will mean in practice.

Margaret Jefferies, chairwoman of Project Lyttelton, says the project started out with quite a different mission. Years ago its purpose was preserving the historic feel of the town. The group was involved in restoring the Timeball Station and creating the Torpedo Boat Museum. Then it became about community action, and now it's sustainable living.

Jefferies says people seem to have been quietly worried about rampant consumerism for years. Now they are ready to act. She says as a port with a strong artistic community, Lyttelton has always had a stroppy edge. And some locals are proposing quite radical action.

Lyttelton already has an "enviro-kindy", a community composting scheme, and a time bank for neighbourhood work. To tackle the woeful energy-efficiency of its heritage cottages, a bulk discount on home insulation has been negotiated for the town.

The community garden behind the swimming pool is a place where locals can grow their own food, sharing both effort and know-how. And the town's farmers' market has been a big hit, doing its bit for food miles by insisting all produce comes from within a 100km radius - although you see the odd bunch of bananas from stall-holders stretching the rules, Jefferies admits.

Next on the agenda is the possibility of making Lyttelton completely plastic bag free and tapping local land owners, like Lyttelton Port, for waste ground that could be cultivated.

Jefferies says experience has taught a few lessons. One of the biggest is that a community effort has to be open-minded and positive. People have to move at their own pace and not be made to feel that partial change is failure.

She says it was a mistake at one of Lyttelton's street parties to have people manning the recycling bins, telling people where they should put the rubbish. "People were in party mode. It got up their noses."

Chipping away at the problems is the pragmatic approach, Jefferies says. "It's got to be fun, not prescriptive. If worm farms are your thing, it's what you love, then you go and concentrate on that. If you don't want to be out agitating about plastic bags, that's fine."

Jefferies has also noticed a difference between those who see sustainability as about "tack on" changes and those looking for a deeper personal or spiritual change.

She says some want the same lifestyle, just with more efficient and renewable technology. Others want to get right out of the trap of working ever harder just to own more stuff.

Lyttelton is one of a number of "transition town" experiments that have sprung up around the country. Lincoln is another with its rather more academically oriented Envirotown programme.

Jefferies says while Project Lyttelton is rather homespun, Envirotown comes with a thick manual.

Rhys Taylor says hardly anything about sustainable-living practices is new. The difference is in the will to act.

Taylor says the country has problems that need to be tackled at a higher level, of course.

However, what people need most is the information. Then they will respond intelligently.

He points out that so much of our waste is hidden. We are happy to buy cheap plastic junk from China because we have no idea of the coal being burnt, the pollution being produced.

"We've managed to export the problem."

So one of the most necessary changes is to start making waste visible again. At the sustainable living evening classes he teaches, part of the homework is to carry out energy and refuse audits.

These days you can get speedometer-like devices like the Christchurch-developed Centameter which hooks up to your power meter with a radio link and sits in the kitchen telling you how many kilowatts per hour you are burning.

Taylor says once something can be measured, a target can be set to gradually reduce usage. For example, it is not hard to check your annual car mileage, then aim to cut out enough car trips to travel, say, 5% less each year.

But can society really be turned around while there are still Hummer drivers out there taking a perverse pride in their profligacy? Why should the few make sacrifices if most probably won't?

Taylor says perhaps it is rather that the wasteful are now becoming more visible to us as we become attuned to the issue of sustainability.

Surveys are showing more of the population is ready for a change than we think, Taylor says.

But right now people are still learning what it all must mean in practice: how can we go forward in a way that still gives us the best of both, a life and a world?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4373521a13135.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:44:07 pm
Climate change shatters huge ice shelf

‘Like an explosion’ — ancient landscape crumbles in shocking vision of global warming

By REBECCA PALMER and PAUL EASTON - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 27 March 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming002.jpg)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming003.jpg)

          OFF THE SHELF: A 415sq/km chunk of the Wilkins Ice Shelf has collapsed into the Ancarctic ocean.

A gigantic Antarctic ice shelf is collapsing and global warming is being blamed.

An iceberg 41 kilometres long and 2.5km wide fell off the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula in late February.

That triggered the disintegration of 405 square kilometres of ice.

The entire ice shelf — the size of the Hawke's Bay region — is now in danger of disintegrating.

The destruction was captured in satellite pictures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the United States.

Scientists said a thin strand of ice about 6km wide was all that was stopping the remaining 13,680sq km shelf from collapsing.

Professor Tim Naish, of Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre, said the breakup was part of a pattern seen for about 50 years. Ice breaks were fully expected.

"They're likely to be a more frequent event."

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming004.jpg)

OTHER-WORDLY: An image taken from a British Antarctic Survey video,
showing the breakup of the ice shelf. The BAS sent a Twin Otter aircraft
to fly the length of the main crack. Massive rectangular icebergs are
collapsing into house-sized rubble.


The Antarctic Peninsula had warmed by about 2½ degrees in the past 50 years — more than other parts of the world. Remnants of the shelf could end up near New Zealand, he said.

In 2006, large icebergs drifted up the South Island's east coast.

Professor Naish said the breakdown of the Wilkins shelf would not contribute to rising sea levels. He compared it to an ice-cube in a glass of water — when the cube melts, the water level does not go up, as it has already been displaced.

But the disappearance of ice shelves could cause connected glaciers to melt and flow into the ocean more quickly, which would raise sea levels.

Niwa principal scientist David Wratt said the ice shelf collapse was likely to be a result of climate change. "It's certainly a sign that things are happening."

The peninsula's Larsen Ice Shelf had collapsed in 2002, with 500 billion tonnes of ice breaking up into bergs in less than a month.

Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the snow and ice data center, alerted the British Antarctic Survey when he saw a big chunk of the Wilkins shelf breaking away on satellite images.

An aircraft was sent to check the size of the collapse.

"Big, hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble — it's like an explosion," researcher Jim Elliot said.

By March 08, about 570 sq km had broken off, including the chunk Dr Scambos had seen.

"I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly," British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan said. "The ice shelf is hanging by a thread."

Dr Vaughan, who earlier predicted the Wilkins shelf would collapse in 30 years, said the collapse was the result of global warming.

Dr Scambos said scientists believed the shelf had been in place for hundreds of years.

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming005.jpg)



ANTARCTIC HEATS UP

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a plate of floating ice on the southwest Antarctic Peninsula, which stretches toward South America. Temperature rises in the region have been greater than other places on Earth.

The size of the threatened shelf is estimated to be about 13,680 square kilometres – about 22 times the size of Lake Taupo.

Satellite images show about 570 square kilometres of ice have collapsed so far, including a large chunk that broke away on February 28. The rest of the shelf is "hanging by a thread", the British Antarctic Survey says.

In 1998, the shelf lost 1100 square kilometres of ice, or about 6 per cent of its surface.

Several other ice shelves have collapsed in the region in the past three decades. In 2002, the Larsen B shelf disappeared in just over 30 days.




http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4452883a6479.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4452970a11.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on February 16, 2009, 06:44:23 pm
You wanna see something really spooky?

I'll post it later tonight...


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:45:24 pm
Glacier to go in 20 years

NZPA | Thursday, 24 April 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming006.jpg)

MELTING ICE: The terminal lake of the Tasman Glacier complete with icebergs that have calved from the terminal face
as viewed from a skiplane on Easter Monday, 24 March 2008.


Climate change will see most of the Tasman Glacier in the Southern Alps melt away over the next 20 years, scientists say.

"In the past 10 years, the glacier has receded a hell of a lot," said glaciologist Martin Brook.

"It's just too warm for a glacier to be sustained at such a low altitude — 730 metres above sea level — so it melts rapidly and it is going to disappear altogether."

The Tasman Glacier is the biggest in the Southern Alps and, at 29 kilometres, was one of the longest in the world's temperate zones.

In 1973, there was no lake in front of the Tasman Glacier. New measurements taken last week indicate the lake at its foot is now 7km long, 2km wide and 245m deep.

The lake has attracted regular excursions by boatloads of tourists, but Dr Brook warned yesterday that they may be at risk from huge chunks of ice unexpectedly breaking loose underwater and surfacing as far as 60m from the glacier face.

"There's actually a sub-surface apron of ice that slopes away under the water for at least 50m or 60m from the front of the glacier," Dr Brook said. As this ice-apron melted, blocks of ice broke off and floated to the surface.

"This happens pretty quickly and is potentially a hazard for the tour boats that cruise up to the cliff: the blocks just pop out on the surface and some are between 5m and 10m in size."

The lake has been formed as the ice which makes up the glacier melts, and is a key factor in its destruction: the deeper the lake, the faster the retreat of the glacier.

According to another glaciologist, Trevor Chinn, the development of the lake was a tipping point: no amount of snow at the head of the glacier, the neve, can compensate for melting triggered by the lake.

The last major survey of the glacier was in the 1990s. Since then, the glacier has retreated 180m a year, exposing a basin carved out of rock more than 20,000 years ago when the glacier was a lot larger and more powerful.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4494166a6479.html



Tasman Glacier could go in 20 years

Hot air blamed for Tasman Glacier's melt

By JOHN KEAST - The Press | Thursday, 24 April 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming007.jpg)

MELT DOWN: The Tasman Glacier is melting fast and will
ultimately disappear, experts fear.
— DAVID HALLETT/The Press


The Tasman Glacier in Mount Cook-Aoraki National Park is retreating at an alarming rate and will ultimately disappear, experts at Massey University warn.

Dr Martin Brook, lecturer in physical geography, said that in 1973 there was no lake in front of the glacier, but new measurements last week indicated the lake was now 7km long, 2km wide and 245m deep.

The lake is formed as ice in the glacier melts.

"In the last 10 years the glacier has retreated a hell of a lot. It's just too warm for a glacier to be sustained as such low altitude, 730 metres above sea level, so it melts rapidly and it is going to disappear altogether.

"Significantly, the deeper the lake, the faster the retreat of the glacier."

The lake could only grow to a length of 16km, which would mean a further 9km of glacier retreat.

"Using the empirical relationships between the water depth and glacier retreat rate, we could expect further retreat of between 477m and 822m each year. At these rates, it would take between 10 and 19 years for the lake to expand to its maximum," Brook said.

His work indicated that an extreme scenario for the future retreat of the glacier, developed by Dr Martin Kirkbride in the 1990s, was correct.

"The last major survey was in the 1990s and since then the glacier has retreated back 180m a year on average. This has exposed a huge rock basin which was eroded more than 20,000 years ago when the glacier was a lot larger and more powerful."

Research students are studying the glacier and lake using a new towfish sonar and echo-sounding equipment.

"The glacier followed a slow retreat phase for a while, in that a thermo-erosional notch in the ice cliff face would develop at the water line, melt back into the glacier undercutting the ice above, causing the ice to collapse into the lake.

"But what is happening now is that a short foot of ice is extending out into the lake away from the ice cliff, and the glacier is now in a period of fast retreat. This is because as the water depth increases, sodoes the speed of retreat — simply, a much larger part of the glacier is submerged and the water, even at only 2°C, is still able to melt the glacier ice," Brook said.

As well as looking at the Tasman Glacier, the team is analysing the newly exposed sub-surface landscape.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4495365a24035.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4494061a7693.html



Tasman Glacier retreat extreme

Created: Wednesday, 23 April 2008 | Last updated: Thursday, 24 April 2008
Massey University News

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming008.jpg)

From left: technician David Feek, senior lecturer Dr Ian Fuller and PhD student Claire Robertson
looking at sub-bottom sediment using the towfish sonar. In the background is a high-precision
GPS transmitter attached to the towfish, which gives its location to about 5mm accuracy.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming009.jpg)

PhD student John Appleby (left) and Honours student Rob Dykes (right) in a boat on the lake
measuring depth with an echo sounder.


The Tasman Glacier is retreating faster than ever and will ultimately disappear, glaciologists are warning.

In 1973 there was no lake in front of the Tasman Glacier, says Dr Martin Brook, lecturer in physical geography in the School of People, Environment and Planning. New measurements taken last week indicate the lake, formed by ice melt from the glacier, is now 7km long, 2km wide and 245m deep. The lake has been formed as the ice which makes up the glacier melts.

“In the last 10 years the glacier has receded a hell of a lot,” Dr Brook says. “It’s just too warm for a glacier to be sustained at such a low altitude, 730m above sea level, so it melts rapidly and it is going to disappear altogether. Significantly, the deeper the lake, the faster the retreat of the glacier.”

Dr Brook says the lake can only grow to a length of about 16km, which would mean a further 9km of glacier retreat.

“Using the empirical relationships between water depth and glacier retreat rate we could expect further retreat of between 477m and 822m each year. At these rates it would take between 10 and 19 years for the lake to expand to its maximum.”

His work indicated that an extreme scenario for the future retreat of the Tasman Glacier, developed by Dr Martin Kirkbride in the 1990s, was correct.

“The last major survey was in the 1990s and since then the glacier has retreated back 180 metres a year on average. This has exposed a huge rock basin which was eroded more than 20,000 years ago when the glacier was a lot larger and more powerful.”

Dr Brook and a number of research students are studying the glacier and the lake using a new towfish sonar and echo sounding equipment to measure the depth and analyse sediments under the lake.

“The glacier followed a slow retreat phase for a while, in that a thermo-erosional notch in the ice cliff face would develop at the water line, melt back into the glacier undercutting the ice above, causing the ice to collapse into the lake.

“But what is happening now is that a short foot of ice is extending out into the lake away from the ice cliff, and the glacier is now in a period of fast retreat. This is because as the water depth increases so does the speed of retreat — simply, a much larger part of the glacier is submerged and the water, even at only two degrees celcius, is still able to melt the glacier ice.

“The result is large pieces of ice fracturing off the ice foot and floating on the surface — the debris on the icebergs on the surface of the lake and the icebergs are a reflection of this.”

As well as addressing the future of the Tasman Glacier, which is in Aoraki Mount Cook National Park, the team is analysing the newly exposed sub-surface landscape. The project is also interested in the glacier because it is very different to the clean-ice glaciers on the West Coast. Tasman is covered in rock and debris, and has a different relationship with climate, Dr Brook says, as well as different patterns of retreat.

“In particular, although there’s a near-vertical ice cliff at the front of the glacier that terminates in the lake, there’s actually a sub-surface apron of ice that slopes away under the water for at least 50m or 60m from the front of the glacier. As this ice-apron melts, blocks of ice break off and float to the surface. This happens pretty quickly and is potentially a hazard for the tour boats that cruise up to the cliff — the blocks just pop out on the surface and some are between 5m and 10m in size.”

http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-us/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=tasman-glacier-retreat-extreme-23-04-2008


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: dragontamer on February 16, 2009, 06:45:53 pm
"The driver's saying, ‘look at me. Aren't I great? I can afford to waste huge amounts of fuel’."


Well, look at that.  I always thought they were thinking "Look at me.....I'm a wanker".

(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/wink.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:46:21 pm
Plug being pulled on nature's freezer

An Arctic traverse shows the ice is in retreat

By STACEY WOOD - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 19 July 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming010.jpg)

EXPEDITION LEADER: Grant Redvers traversed the Arctic ice pack on
board the Tara, which in a former life was the boat Sir Peter Blake was murdered on.
— MAARTEN HOLL/The Dominion Post


Scientists continue to debate the impact of global warming on the Arctic ice pack, but for the man who spent nearly a year and a half traversing it the picture is crystal-clear.

As expedition leader on board the Tara, Kiwi Grant Redvers oversaw atmospheric, oceanographic and meteorological testing, as the icebound boat made its way across the top of the world.

Retracing the 1893 journey of the wooden ship Fram, the crew ploughed the boat into the ice northeast of Siberia, allowing the Arctic drift to carry them more than 5000 kilometres.

In a previous life, the Tara was Sir Peter Blake's boat Seamaster. Sir Peter was murdered on the boat by Amazon River pirates in 2001.

Most of the Tara's data is being processed by scientists in France. Some startling observations speak for themselves, however.

Between the summers of 2005 and 2007 the team recorded a loss of more than a million square kilometres of ice. During one 12-month period, the ice retreated 400 kilometres, and Mr Redvers says the evidence of melting was highly visible.

"In summer, over 50 per cent of the surface area is covered in pools of surface melt."

The melting of the ice cap will not raise sea levels much, but the oceans may become warm enough to trigger more melting in Greenland. That could cause ocean levels to rise up to seven metres.

The journey, which took the Fram about three years, took half as long for the Tara. Thinner ice and stronger winds enabled Mr Redvers' team to emerge into the Fram Strait after only 507 days.

The warmer temperatures of the Arctic summer posed some problems for the crew on the Tara.

Despite being in the heart of nature's freezer, the team found it hard to keep food cold, forcing them to find other means of preservation.

"We ate a lot of Santa's reindeer," Mr Redvers says.

The schooner's sauna — "one of our few luxuries" — was turned into a meat-smoking room.

Mr Redvers was the only expedition member to stay on board for the whole journey. Others came and went by helicopter.

"It was a dream of mine," he says, "not just to go in as a researcher, but to ... live there."

Mr Redvers is back in New Zealand but heading for hotter climes. He has been invited to a premiere of a Central American film featuring the Tara. The film, De Los Mayas al Polo Norte (The Mayas at the North Pole) is one of several productions about the expedition.

After a whirlwind tour through Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, Mr Redvers will retreat to his home on the shores of Lake Taupo to write a book about the Tara expedition.

For now, the Tara has returned to France, but Mr Redvers says there is plenty more adventure on it's horizons. The boat is expected to set sail on another epic journey early next year.

THEIR OWN ICE AGE

The team adopted the term "polar time", because everything takes 10 times longer than normal in the extreme environment.

Tara's owner, Etienne Bourgois, is head of fashion label Agnes B, which made special Arctic-friendly outfits to help the team combat the cold.

The crew enjoyed fresh salads, courtesy of the world's northern-most hydroponic vege garden, grown on board.

The expedition adhered to a strict no-waste policy, and offset their emissions by donating to a carbon capture programme.

Of the 507-day journey, 230 were spent in permanent darkness, and a further 230 in constant light, with the rest somewhere in between.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4621881a27490.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 06:47:46 pm
NZ glaciers smallest since records began

By TOM CARDY - The Dominion Post | Monday, 15 September 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming011.jpg)

WARMING SIGN: Marion Glacier in Arawata Valley has recently withdrawn from its proglacial state.
Most of New Zealand's glaciers are the smallest they've been since records began.
— DR TREVOR CHINN/NIWA


Most of New Zealand's glaciers are now the smallest they have been since records began — and they continue to shrink at a rapid rate.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, which made the discovery, said global warming was the main culprit.

Between April last year and March this year, glaciers in the Southern Alps lost about 2.2 billion tonnes of permanent ice — the equivalent in weight to the top section of Mount Taranaki. It is the fourth highest annual loss since monitoring began 32 years ago.

The total ice for the glaciers now comprises an estimated 44.9 cubic kilometres — the lowest on record. The volume of ice dropped by 50 per cent during the last century.

NIWA principal scientist Jim Salinger said glaciers were fed by snow, but because of the La Nina weather system over New Zealand, more easterly winds and warmer than normal temperatures during the period, there was less snow in the Southern Alps and more snowmelt.

Dr Salinger said while the glaciers were sensitive to changes in wind and precipitation as well as temperature, global warming was a big factor in their shrinking.

"It's one of the clearest signs that our climate is warming and that [the shrinkage] is a definite physical response. To have that amount of melting you would have to reduce the precipitation at least by a half or more or warm a degree," he said.

"We know that precipitation has not gone down in the Southern Alps. In the last quarter of a century it's gone up. So to make them retreat you've got to have more melting, which is higher temperatures.

"This is certainly a definite sign of warming in the New Zealand area."

Niwa has surveyed 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps for the past 32 years, recording the height of the snowline at the end of each summer. On average the snowline this year was 130 metres above where it would need to be for the glaciers not to shrink, Dr Salinger said.

It was unlikely the glaciers would disappear entirely, as that would require a temperature rise of 7 degrees celsius and no snow even at the top of our highest mountain, Aoraki Mount Cook.

But they would continue to retreat. Another sign of warming were 12 glacial lakes, including ones at Marion Glacier and Tasman Glacier.

"They are definitely a sign of warming. There is no doubt about it. You get a very rapid loss of snow and ice and that's what's been happening."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4692547a6479.html



Media Release

Glaciers continue to show significant ice loss

15 September 2008
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA)

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming012.jpg)

The large Tasman Glacier in Aoraki-Mount Cook National Park.
(Photo: Dr Trevor Chinn, Alpine and Polar Research, Hawea)


New Zealand’s glaciers are showing the lowest total ice mass on record and most are continuing to shrink at a rapid rate.

Research released by the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) shows the Southern Alps glaciers have lost 2.5 km³ (2.2 billion tonnes) of permanent ice from April 2007 to March 2008, the fourth highest annual loss since monitoring started.

The 2008 total ice volume estimate for the Southern Alps glaciers of 44.9 km³ is the lowest on record.

For the past 32 years NIWA has been surveying 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps, using a small fixed wing aircraft, to record the height of the snow line at the end of summer.

NIWA Principal Scientist Dr Jim Salinger says the photographs taken on this year’s survey showed the glaciers had lost much more ice than they had gained during the past glacier year.

“As a result of La Niña conditions over New Zealand, more easterlies, and warmer than normal temperatures, there was less snowfall in the Southern Alps and more snowmelt.

The higher the snow line, the more snow is lost to feed the glacier. On average, the snow line this year was about 130 metres above where it would need to be to keep the ice mass constant,” Dr Salinger says.

Dr Salinger says these results match trends of ice mass lost globally. International monitoring of mountains glaciers by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland shows most glaciers are retreating. Of the glaciers where continuous data is available, the mean annual average loss in ice thickness since 1980 is close to half a metre per year.

For more information contact:

Dr Jim Salinger
NIWA, Auckland
Tel: +64 9 375 2053
Mob: +64 27 521 9468

Background Information:

Worldwide, glaciers are regarded as a useful indicator of global warming, but New Zealand’s glaciers are more complicated because they have their source in areas of extremely high precipitation. West of the Main Divide in the Southern Alps, more than 10 metres (10 000 mm) of precipitation falls each year as clouds are pushed up over the sharply rising mountain ranges. This means the mass and volume of New Zealand’s glaciers is sensitive to changing wind and precipitation patterns as well as to temperature. So, for example, the glaciers advanced during most of the 1980s and 1990s when the area experienced about a 15% increase in precipitation, associated with more El Niño events and stronger westerly winds over New Zealand. The glaciers in parts of Norway are similar.

Despite the sensitivity of New Zealand glaciers to changes in both precipitation and temperature, the volume of ice in the Southern Alps dropped by roughly 50% during the last century. New Zealand’s temperature increased by about 1°C over the same period.

Globally, most glaciers are retreating. Of the glaciers for which there are continuous data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the mean annual loss in ice thickness since 1980 remains close to half a metre per year. The Service has said that the loss in ice mass “leaves no doubt about the accelerating change in climatic conditions”. For world glacier data, see www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms.

The level of the glacier snow lines is not necessarily closely related to the amount of snow that falls on the country’s ski fields during winter. Most of the popular ski fields are east of the Main Divide, or in the North Island. Mount Hutt, for instance, gets its snow from big southeasterlies, whereas most of the glaciers are fed by westerlies.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming013.jpg)

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news/mr/2008/2008-09-15


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 07:35:00 pm
Heavy snow likely to bolster southern glaciers

By PAUL GORMAN, Science Reporter - The Press | Monday, 15 September 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming014.jpg)

GLACIAL FUTURE: Heavy alpine snowfalls in the South Island
this winter could temporarily halt or even reverse the
continuing decline of some glaciers in the Southern Alps.
Meanwhile, Franz Josef Glacier (pictured) and the nearby
Fox Glacier in Westland National Park both buck the
worldwide trend as they continue to advance.
— ALAN WOOD/The Press


Heavy alpine snowfalls in the South Island this winter could temporarily halt or even reverse the continuing decline of glaciers in the Southern Alps.

The latest survey by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) draws the gloomy conclusion that the country's glaciers are shrinking at an alarming rate.

The total ice volume of the Southern Alps' glaciers is 44.9 cubic km, the least since the annual survey began 32 years ago.

The 50 glaciers in the survey lost 2.5 cu km, or 2.2 billion tonnes, of permanent ice in the 12 months from April 2007, the fourth greatest annual loss on record. That was reflected in a mean South Island snowline over the period of 1960m above sea level, 130m higher than the 1976-2008 average.

However, the stormy winter means the snowpack in some parts of the Southern Alps is the greatest it has been for about a decade.

Power company Meridian Energy is eagerly awaiting a large spring thaw and the boost it will give to its southern hydro-lakes, which are only just starting to recover from very low levels throughout the winter.

Niwa principal climate scientist Jim Salinger said that extra snow could boost the ice mass quite quickly in some smaller glaciers but would not show up in larger glaciers for years.

"It depends what happens over the summer. We've still got the snow melt to come that's November to February and maybe March. If it's a cold summer, it might halt the decline a little, but the general trend is downward."

There was also a chance of late spring snowfalls.

The shrinking of the glaciers was due to climate change, Salinger said.

"Temperatures have increased a degree over a whole century, and by about three-tenths of a degree since 1960."

The melting trend in New Zealand matched that globally.

"International monitoring of mountain glaciers by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland shows most glaciers are retreating," Salinger said.

"Of the glaciers where continuous data is available, the mean annual average loss in ice thickness since 1980 is close to half a metre per year."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4692591a19753.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Elric of Melnibone on February 16, 2009, 07:45:38 pm
Yes, few deny climate is changing.

But is man the sole cause?

And is shuffling money the cure?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 07:58:05 pm
NZ's eco footprint sixth largest

NZPA | Wednesday, 29 October 2008

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/GlobalWarming015.jpg)

NOT SO CLEAN AND GREEN: New Zealand's ecological
footprint is the sixth highest in the world, ranking
alongside the United Arab Emirates and the US in
the top 10 worst offenders.


New Zealand's ecological footprint — measured per head of population — is the sixth largest in the world, according to a global survey released today.

Swiss-based conservation group WWF said in its Living Planet report that more than three quarters of the world's population lives in countries whose consumption levels are outstripping environmental renewal.

The report, a leading statement on the planet's health, shows that only the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Kuwait, Denmark and Australia have larger ecological footprints than New Zealand on a per-head basis.

"As a country we are in dubious company in terms of our demands on the planet," said WWF-New Zealand's executive director Chris Howe.

The WWF calculations included carbon emissions from the production of imported goods and services and showed New Zealanders' use of natural resources was excessive.

Mr Howe said it made sense to look after nature as the country's health and prosperity depended on it.

"We are lucky in New Zealand to have a bountiful country with large biocapacity — but if we continue to consume our resources at this breakneck pace, its ability to provide for us will decline."

As world consumption rates increased, biodiversity was declining.

An ecological footprint measures the amount of resources humans use and the waste they generate: New Zealand has moved from requiring 5.9 "global hectares" per person in the 2006 WWF report to an average of 7.7 global hectares.

A global hectare is a standardised hectare of land able to produce resources and absorb wastes at world average levels.

Worldwide, the average ecological footprint jumped from 2.2 global hectares per person to 2.7 global hectares per person, but the world has only an average 2.1ha available per person.

"Humans are now exceeding the planet's regenerative capacity by about 30 percent," the report said.

If demand kept growing at the same rate, the equivalent of two planets would be required in the mid-2030s to sustain current lifestyles — or 3.5 planets if everyone on Earth used resources at the same pace as New Zealanders.

The report by WWF — also known as the World Wildlife Fund — said the largest human-induced pressure on the planet was from fossil fuel use.

In New Zealand, the main growth in carbon emissions since 1990 has come from the energy sector — mainly transport and electricity generation.

According to Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority reports New Zealand is now second only to the United States both in the number of cars owned per person and in the number of kilometres travelled in those cars.

Mr Howe said the most urgent priority in NZ should be given to reducing our carbon emissions.

"We have the will to change, but we need much more support from Government to do so, and that needs to happen now," he said.

The Government needed to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 2005 levels, by 2050.



The top 10 nations with largest ecological footprint per capita are:

1. United Arab Emirates

2. United States of America

3. Kuwait

4. Denmark

5. Australia

6. New Zealand

7. Canada

8. Norway

9. Estonia

10. Ireland

• Source: WWF Living Planet Report 2008.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4743115a7693.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 08:08:17 pm
See what excessive quantites of greenhouse gases can cause?  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/12emdgust.gif)



Kiwi seas were as hot as spas scientists say

By RUTH HILL - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 30 December 2008

If you lived in New Zealand 50 million years ago, you could have had a warm dip in the sea all year round, scientists say.

The spa-pool-like conditions that existed in the early Eocene period a time of significant global warming suggest scientists may be underestimating the likely effect of climate change.

Using sedimentary rocks from the bed of the Waipara River in North Canterbury, an international research group led by GNS Science palaeontologist Chris Hollis has reconstructed ancient sea temperatures.

They found surface sea water exceeded 30 degrees celsius, and water at the sea floor hovered around 20°C during an episode of greenhouse gas-induced global warming that lasted for between two million and three million years.

"These temperatures are at the extreme end of modern tropical water masses," Dr Hollis said. Year-round sea surface temperatures of 25°C to 30°C are today found only at the equator.

In a study to be published in the international scientific journal Geology next month, scientists have inferred warm conditions in New Zealand for this period from a wide range of fossil evidence showing the country was once covered in lush tropical forest. But, till now, the degree of warmth was uncertain.

Dr Hollis said similar freakishly warm conditions had been reported for this period in high-latitude regions of the northern hemisphere. "It now seems likely that some, as yet unknown, heat-transport mechanism comes into play during times of extreme global warmth."

Co-author Matt Huber, of Purdue University, Indiana, said the new findings were at least 10°C higher than previous estimates, which indicated climate models had underestimated past warming episodes. "It is possible that models are also underestimating future warming projections."

Dr Hollis said research into extreme climatic changes in the past would benefit from New Zealand's recent decision to join the Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme an international project extracting 2000-metre sediment cores from the ocean floor.

The recent findings, part of an eight-year study, will be presented at an international conference on climate change at Te Papa next month.

Funded by the New Zealand Government through the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, the project involves an international team of 12 research scientists and graduate students.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4805564a6479.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on February 16, 2009, 09:10:04 pm
No rules against spamming here huh?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 16, 2009, 09:15:49 pm
I originally posted all that stuff at the old group, so I simply spent half an hour reformatting it all for SMF groups (the original HTML code wasn't compatible with these groups) and re-uploading all the image files at Photobucket, then associating the URLs with those articles; then once I had everything just right, I reposted it all into this new group!  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 29, 2009, 07:54:46 pm
(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons/517GlobalWarming17Mar09.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on March 29, 2009, 09:52:09 pm
Spam #10 New Zealand's ecological footprint — measured per head of population — is the sixth largest in the world, according to a global survey released today.
Considering that NZ produces food for 50 million people, those 50 million should be included in our equation.
More bullshit propaganda.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on March 29, 2009, 10:07:43 pm
Spam #10 New Zealand's ecological footprint — measured per head of population — is the sixth largest in the world, according to a global survey released today.
Considering that NZ produces food for 50 million people, those 50 million should be included in our equation.
More bullshit propaganda.


I agree with that.
More bullshit and propaganda.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 03, 2009, 08:01:14 pm

Arctic ice ‘gone in 30 years’

NZPA | Friday, 03 April 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/2312537s-03Apr09.jpg)

Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years.

A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner.

A change in the amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight back into space.

When ice is replaced by dark ocean water that sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming of the planet.

The finding adds to concern about climate change caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, a problem that has begun receiving more attention in the Obama administration and is part of the G20 discussions under way in London.

"Due to the recent loss of sea ice, the 2005-2008 autumn central Arctic surface air temperatures were greater than 5C above what would be expected," the new study reports.

That amount of temperature increase had been expected by the year 2070.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/2312536s-03Apr09.jpg)

BEARS' HABITAT DISAPPEARING: Global warming is
destroying Arctic ice at a faster rate than expected.


The new report by Muyin Wang of the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean and James E Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, appears in Friday's edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They expect the area covered by summer sea ice to decline from about 2.8 million square miles (7.25 million sq km) normally to 620,000 square miles within 30 years.

Last year's summer minimum was 1.8 million square miles in September, second lowest only to 2007 which had a minimum of 1.65 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre.

The Centre said Arctic sea ice reached its winter maximum for this year at 5.8 million square miles on February 28. That was 278,000 square miles below the 1979-2000 average making it the fifth lowest on record.

The six lowest maximums since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years.

Overland and Wang combined sea-ice observations with six complex computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reach their conclusions. Combining several computer models helps avoid uncertainties caused by natural variability.

Much of the remaining ice would be north of Canada and Greenland, with much less between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.

"The Arctic is often called the Earth's refrigerator because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space," Wang said in a statement.

"With less ice, the sun's warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air."

The study was supported by the NOAA Climate Change Program Office, the Institute for the Study of the Ocean and Atmosphere and the US Department of Energy.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2312253


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Nitpicker1 on April 30, 2009, 04:01:52 pm

just in case yas hadn't noticed

Niwa sacks Jim Salinger
24/04/2009

One of New Zealand's top climate scientists, Jim Salinger, has been fired from his job at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

The high-profile scientist, whose work contributed to a Nobel prize, is reported to have been sacked for ignoring a new Niwa policy against speaking publicly without prior approval.

"I can't understand it, it's not as though I'm doing bad science, it's not as though I'm under-performing, so I'm really astounded," Dr Salinger said on TV One News tonight.

TV One said Niwa had accused Dr Salinger of serious misconduct after he took part in a programme the channel produced about glaciers.

The Green Party said Dr Salinger was dismissed earlier this week for helping TVNZ weatherman Jim Hickey with climate-related inquiries.

The scientist has frequently appeared in TV climate reports and has spoken in the media about climate change.

"Niwa's actions will make all government scientists nervous about their jobs," said Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons.

"New Zealand is on a slippery slope when trying to provide Kiwis with a greater understanding of our climate is a sackable offence."

Ms Fitzsimons said scientists should be able to help the public and the media with scientific problems, particularly around issues like climate change.

"An investigation is needed into how it came to be that one of New Zealand's foremost scientists was frog-marched out of his job for what appears to be trivial and petty reasons."

Ms Fitzsimons said the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, Wayne Mapp, should call in Niwa and tell them to "get to the bottom of this messy matter".

Greenpeace said it wanted answers from Niwa and the Government.

"Dr Salinger has done some amazing work to educate New Zealanders about climate change and he is highly respected internationally," said Greenpeace senior climate campaigner Simon Boxer.

"He was very clear about the need for urgent climate action in New Zealand."

TV One reported Dr Salinger was considering claiming unjustified dismissal.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/2361900/Niwa-sacks-Jim-Salinger/ (http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/2361900/Niwa-sacks-Jim-Salinger/)







Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Nitpicker1 on April 30, 2009, 04:03:12 pm
Scientist lodges second claim
By PAUL GORMAN
The Press Last updated 05:00 30/04/2009
 Sacked scientist Jim Salinger has slapped a second grievance case on his former employer, Niwa.

The high-profile climatologist decided yesterday to challenge his firing by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) last Thursday as an unjustified dismissal.

Salinger will fight to be reinstated.

A separate personal grievance case over the way Niwa dealt with Salinger while he was still an employee had already been filed against the Crown research institute (CRI).

Salinger's lawyer, Alex Hope, confirmed the scientist wanted his job back.

A mediated hearing had been set down for mid-May, he said.

Salinger confirmed a hearing had been scheduled for May 12 or 13.

Niwa spokeswoman Michele Hollis repeated there would be no comment from the institute because it was a confidential employment issue.

Salinger yesterday declined to talk further about his sacking, which he had maintained was for doing his job and talking to the media.

However, this week he had told The Press things changed at Niwa about six months ago, before worsening in March and leading up to his firing.

"I had to pinch myself for about four weeks that this could be happening to me. It was clear what route it was going to take in the last week.

"Clearly, they weren't changing their minds along the track they were going to take. It's not nice being sacked. But, in a sense, I had prepared myself for it."

He had been threatened with "dismissal due to serious misconduct", he said, on returning to work on March 6 after taking part and commenting on an annual survey of the alpine snowline.

Two letters were waiting for him a long letter with a list of "allegations" and a smaller note on his snowline survey work, he said.

Labour Party list MP Moana Mackey, a molecular biologist who worked as a scientist, said Salinger's sacking had unnerved scientists around the country.

Scientists were now thinking twice about whether they could talk about their research.

She said Research, Science and Technology Minister Wayne Mapp had avoided answering questions in Parliament about Salinger's dismissal, saying he could not comment because it was an employment matter.

He had also evaded her question in Parliament asking if he would assure scientists they were entitled, and encouraged, to talk publicly about science, she said

Mapp told The Press the existing practices of CRIs allowing scientists to speak out would continue.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/national/2373502/Scientist-lodges-second-claim (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/national/2373502/Scientist-lodges-second-claim)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Lovelee on April 30, 2009, 06:26:11 pm
Jim Salingers sacking has more behind it than they are prepared to say.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Lovelee on April 30, 2009, 06:27:19 pm
Huge ice chunks break away from Antarctic shelf

Massive ice chunks are crumbling away from a shelf in the western Antarctic Peninsula, researchers have said, warning that 3,370 square kilometres of ice - an area larger than Rhode Island - was in danger of breaking off in coming weeks.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s. Researchers believe it was held in place by an ice bridge linking Charcot Island to the Antarctic mainland.

But the 330-square-kilometre bridge lost two large chunks last year and then shattered completely on April 5.

"As a consequence of the collapse, the rifts, which had already featured along the northern ice front, widened and new cracks formed as the ice adjusted," the European Space Agency said in a statement Wednesday on its Web site, citing new satellite images.

The first icebergs broke away on Friday, and since then some 700 square kilometres of ice have dropped into the sea, according to the satellite data.

"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

The falling away of Antarctic ice shelves does not, in itself, raise sea levels, since the ice was already floating in the sea. But such coastal tables of ice usually hold back glaciers, and when they disintegrate that land ice will often flow more quickly into the sea, contributing to sea-level rise.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Huge-ice-chunks-break-away-from-Antarctic-shelf/tabid/209/articleID/101860/cat/61/Default.aspx?ArticleID=101860


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 02, 2009, 12:58:30 am

Kiwis unlock glacier secret

The Dominion Post with NZPA | Friday, 01 May 2009

Research by three New Zealand scientists may have solved the mystery of why glaciers behave differently in the northern and southern hemispheres.

New Zealand researchers, geologist David Barrell of GNS Science, Victoria University geomorphologist Andrew Mackintosh, and glaciologist Trevor Chinn, of the Alpine and Polar Processes Consultancy, have helped provide definitive dating for changes in glacier behaviour.

The three were part of a team of nine scientists, led by Joerg Schaefer of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which used an isotope dating technique to get very precise ages for glacial deposits near Aoraki-Mount Cook.

They measured the build-up of beryllium-10 isotopes in surface rocks bombarded by cosmic rays to pinpoint dates when glaciers in the Southern Alps started to recede. The technology is expected to be widely applied to precisely date other glaciers around the world.

Glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate changes, usually advancing when it cools and retreating when it warms.

The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the northern and southern hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the northern hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the southern hemisphere.

The research argues that at times the climate in both hemispheres evolved "in sync" and at other times it evolved differently in different parts of the world.

Dr Barrell told NZPA their research presents "new data of novel high precision" though the team has so far chosen not to roll out wider interpretations too quickly.

He said much of it reinforced work done 30 years ago by Canterbury University researcher Professor Colin Burrows, who used NZ glacier data to highlight some of the similarities and differences between northern and southern records over the past 12,000 years.

The paper published in Science magazine today showed the Mount Cook glaciers advanced to their maximum length 6500 years ago, and have been smaller ever since — but glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced to their maximum only in the past 700 years — during the northern hemisphere's "Little Ice Age", which ended about 1860.

During some warm periods in Europe, glaciers were advancing in New Zealand. At other times, glaciers were well advanced in both areas.

In a commentary which accompanied the research, Greg Balco, from the Berkeley Geochronology Center in California, said the conclusion that glacier advances in the northern and southern hemispheres were not synchronised was "unexpected".

Dr Barrell said the paper presented only the first instalment of the dating work, and more will be revealed at an international workshop on past climates to be held at Te Papa on May 15.

"We expect that much progress will result from this new work and the discussions at that meeting," he said.

"The New Zealand findings point to the importance of regional shifts in wind directions and sea surface temperatures," he said.

Regional weather patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) were superimposed on the global climate trends reflected in the behaviour of glaciers.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2378376/Kiwis-unlock-glacier-secret


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: gladys2 on May 02, 2009, 03:19:28 am
KTJ - That bit about glaciers being sensitive indicators of climate change as above - Christ! Even in my lifetime the Franz Joseph and Fox have been up and down like a whore's drawers...


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on May 02, 2009, 08:43:44 am
Gladys, the warmalists - well, the human induced ones anyway, will tell you that because its warming, more snow falls, thus forming glaciers that advance. (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/rolleyes.gif)  In the same breath, they will tell you that because its warming, the snow melts, thus making the glaciers retreat.

They then evolve a convoluted theory, in order to prove what they have just spun up from moonbeams and a desire for the next grant.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Magoo on May 02, 2009, 09:45:46 am
I heard the replay of an interview in part between Leighton Smith and Prof. Bob Carter which I found very interesting.    His opinion is worthy of note in my view.     
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest92.htm   ( about Bob Carter)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Lovelee on May 02, 2009, 11:25:05 am
KTJ - That bit about glaciers being sensitive indicators of climate change as above - Christ! Even in my lifetime the Franz Joseph and Fox have been up and down like a whore's drawers...

Ive been around a few years and none of the glaciers have retreated as far as they are now.
Ive never heard of gi-normous chunks of ice breaking off as they are regularly now.

I have no doubt there is climate change - as there has been numerous times in the past.  This time though things may be moving faster than in the past.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Lovelee on May 02, 2009, 11:32:10 am
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Some interesting before and after shots on this site.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 03, 2009, 09:56:21 pm


Garath Morgan (a rabid capitalist and rightie) has got it when it comes to human-induced climate change....(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/afro.gif)

What a pity the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers” haven't got it and still have their heads in the sand! (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/40emthdown.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Lovelee on May 04, 2009, 11:48:20 am
NZ glacier findings upset climate theory

Research by three New Zealand scientists may have solved the mystery of why glaciers behave differently in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Geologist David Barrell of GNS Science, Victoria University geomorphologist Andrew Mackintosh and glaciologist Trevor Chinn of the Alpine and Polar Processes Consultancy have helped provide definitive dating for changes in glacier behaviour.

They were part of a team of nine scientists, led by Joerg Schaefer of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, who used an isotope-dating technique to get very precise ages for glacial deposits near Mt Cook.

They measured the build-up of beryllium-10 isotopes in surface rocks bombarded by cosmic rays to pinpoint dates when glaciers in the Southern Alps started to recede. The technology is expected to be widely applied to precisely date other glaciers around the world.

Glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate changes, usually advancing when it cools and retreating when it warms.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the Northern Hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.

The research argues that at times the climate in both hemispheres evolved in sync and at other times it evolved differently in different parts of the world.

Dr Barrell said their research presented "new data of novel high precision", though the team has so far chosen not to roll out wider interpretations too quickly.

He said much of it reinforced work done 30 years ago by Canterbury University researcher Professor Colin Burrows, who used NZ glacier data to highlight some of the similarities and differences between northern and southern records over the past 12,000 years.

The paper published in Science magazine yesterday showed the Mt Cook glaciers advanced to their maximum length 6500 years ago, and have been smaller ever since.

But glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced to their maximum only in the past 700 years - during the Northern Hemisphere's "Little Ice Age", which ended about 1860.

During some warm periods in Europe, glaciers were advancing in New Zealand. At other times, glaciers were well advanced in both areas.

In a commentary which accompanied the research, Greg Balco, from the Berkeley Geochronology Centre in California, said the conclusion that glacier advances in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were not synchronised was "unexpected".

Dr Barrell said the paper presented only the first instalment of the dating work, and more would be revealed at an international workshop on past climates to be held at Te Papa on May 15.

"The New Zealand findings point to the importance of regional shifts in wind directions and sea surface temperatures," he said.

Regional weather patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation were superimposed on the global climate trends reflected in the behaviour of glaciers.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10569888


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 04, 2009, 01:23:11 pm

Did Auntie Herald copy that story from the Dominion Post newspaper (owned by their rival company, Fairfax) and republish it? Because it seems almost word-for-word with the Dom-Post article as posted in Reply #22 and originally published by the Dom-Post last Friday (1st May). I note that Auntie Herald published the story the day after the Dominion Post published it.

Incidentally, I notice the NZ Herald has a photograph of the terminal of Fox Glacier accompanying the article. Here is a photograph showing the entire length of Fox Glacier, and a second photograph showing the upper icefall and glacier névé (and Horokoau/Mount Tasman), with both images captured by me almost two weeks ago....

(http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/April%202009%20South%20Is%20Pix/DSCH3-03944-800px.jpg)

(http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/April%202009%20South%20Is%20Pix/DSCH3-03948-800px.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Lovelee on May 06, 2009, 02:02:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/v/s5kg1oOq9tY
 ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 06, 2009, 02:45:11 pm

Weathering the storm of Salinger sacking

WORLD OF SCIENCE — BOB BROCKIE

The Dominion Post | Monday, 04 May 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Caricatures/2383661sJimSalinger25Apr09.jpg)

TVNZ'S Jim Hickey: Hello. Is that Jim Salinger, part-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, president of a world meteorological commission, companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand and renowned science communicator?

Dr Salinger: Yes. That's me.

Jim Hickey: Can you tell us about the weather?

Dr Salinger: No! I can't comment.

Jim Hickey: What do you mean, you can't comment?

Dr Salinger: You've asked the wrong person. My boss says I'm not to talk to you. You must ask the communications manager at my place of work, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. She'll put you right. She might even put you in touch with me.

Jim Hickey: But we'd rather hear about the weather from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Dr Salinger: No. If I talk to you about the weather without permission I could get further up my boss's nose. That's more than my job's worth.

Jim Hickey: You must be joking!

No joke. Something like this must have happened to Dr Salinger. Niwa has given him the boot for publicly making unsanctioned remarks about the weather.

Scientists up and down the country are astonished and outraged at their colleague's sacking. The man has been fired for what he does best - making science intelligible to the public.

Dr Salinger's case opens a window on the inner workings of Niwa and is a telling example of the malaise that has enveloped New Zealand science in the past 17 years. The weather, the ocean, the air, lakes and rivers used to be researched by government scientific agencies until 1992, when Environment Minister Simon Upton closed them all down and rejigged them as commercial companies.

"Professional managers", not necessarily scientists, were appointed to run these companies for profit. Some of the new bosses may have successfully managed a brewery, a drug company or a football team but few understood what scientists do. The new men brought their business suits and ethics to their jobs and imposed these strange managerial protocols on their scientists.

Commercial and scientific enterprises have different motivations, methods and goals. A lot of commerce is competitive and secretive but scientists were not accustomed to that. They worked collaboratively and in the public eye. Now, managers worry that talkative scientists might embarrass their institutions or, worse, give away information that they might otherwise sell.

Scientists find it belittling and demeaning to ask their new masters' permission to speak about their science, as though they can't be trusted to comment diplomatically. Many scientists I know find themselves disempowered and their discipline degraded.

Dr Salinger's sacking would be understandable if serious commercial or political issues were at stake but his managers appear to have given him the elbow on trivial grounds. Goodness knows how many other petty in-house protocols stand in the way of publicising science.

Scientists see this as more than just an employment issue. His sacking overrides scientific conventions - not a good look for science or for the country.

Outlook: Stormy.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/2382545/Weathering-the-storm-of-Salinger-sacking


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: TokGal on May 06, 2009, 03:04:40 pm
Yes I believe in global warming, but I think it is part of a natural cycle which will eventually lead to a new ice age and there is very little we humans can do to change it, bar changing earth's orbit round the sun........what will be, will be.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 14, 2009, 03:14:57 am

Scientists warn on ocean acidification

NZPA | Wednesday, 13 May 2009

Bluff's oyster fisheries in Foveaux Strait may be at the top of a hit list of species vulnerable to increasing acidity levels in the oceans, New Zealand scientists say.

But the global phenomenon of ocean acidification may pose a threat not only to New Zealand's fisheries and aquaculture industries, but to marine ecosystems around the world, according to the national science academy, the Royal Society.

"Concerns exist over acidification and its potential, within decades, to severely affect marine organisms, food webs, biodiversity and fisheries," the society said in a paper released yesterday.

The oceans are becoming more acidic as they store more carbon dioxide from the rising levels in the Earth's atmosphere. Oceans store about 50 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere, and they have absorbed more than 30 percent of the carbon dioxide released by human activity.

The Royal Society is planning to hold a workshop on the issue in Wellington on September 9.

Carbon dioxide-saturated oceans pose a threat to New Zealand's corals, crustaceans and shellfish, because they may thin the calcium carbonate shells not only of the adult organisms, but their juvenile stages.

Acidification may also be threatening calcifying algae which cover 80 percent of the Otago coast and provide the habitat for larvae of species such as paua and kina. Mussels, Pacific and Bluff oysters, paua and scallops make up a $300 million industry.

A key form of calcium carbonate, aragonite, which is used by corals and other sea life may become less available before the middle of the century, according to Professor Keith Hunter, head of Otago University's chemistry department.

A National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) scientist at the university, Dr Philip Boyd, said kina, mussels, oysters, and paua were among important coastal species which could be affected.

In the open ocean micro-organisms such as some plankton at the base of global food webs may be left with weaker and thinner shells.

"We will see a significant 'tipping point' in terms of ocean chemistry by as early as 2030," said Dr Boyd. "We may see the shells of some of these 'calcifiers' dissolve".

Both scientists emphasised there were huge gaps in knowledge of how marine life and ecosystems would change, but said the only plausible way to slow down the changes was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

Coastal organisms may have extra resilience because the conditions in which they live vary naturally, and corals in the southern fjords may also have some adaptions in place because of acidic tannins in bush run-off.

But Antarctic ecosystems will be very vulnerable, because colder water can take up more carbon dioxide, and many cold-water organisms such as corals are slow-growing.

Proposals for helping aquaculture adapt have included breeding species capable of tolerating acidity, reducing the acidity of water in which larval stages develop, and changing the species farmed.

Prof Hunter said Australian research had shown that Sydney rock oysters could be selectively bred to tolerate higher levels of acidity.

"There may be some future for the aquaculture industry to adapt," he said.

The September workshop has been planned to alert government and private sector agencies to the scientific and technical issues, and to inform scientists of the most important priorities in future research.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2406762/Scientists-warn-on-ocean-acidification



Spectre of seas without shells

By ABIGAIL SMITH - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 13 May 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2407518s-13May09.jpg)

POISONED SEA: Abigail Smith says the oceans are
becoming more acidic by the day, affecting the
ability of shellfish and coral to create the shells
and skeletons vital to their survival. — REUTERS.


Remember Silent Spring? It was in 1962 that Rachel Carson's book alerted the world to the problems of the insecticide DDT in the food chain. Birds of prey were particularly vulnerable, with their eggshells becoming so thin they could no longer contain growing embryos. The threat of springtime with no birdsong catapulted the world into a new awareness of ecology and conservation.

Forty-seven years on, a new threat is looming, this time in the sea. Once again the busy rhythm of people is causing an ecological crisis. Not as complicated as modelling global warming, not as simple as banning a pesticide, our newest planetary drama is called ocean acidification. It happens because of the connections between air, water, and shells.

We know that human activities, particularly the burning of coal, oil, petrol and wood, have for the past 200 years increased the amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere. While these molecules float around in the air, they act like a blanket keeping Earth warm and eventually changing the whole climate. The warming effects of CO2 have been less than they could have been, however, because about a third of CO2 from the air gets mopped up by the oceans.

What's good for global climate change, however, is bad for the sea. When you add CO2 to sea water, it becomes more acid. And that means that the carbonate ion, CO3, gets scarcer. That might seem like no big deal, but many marine plants and animals use carbonate, along with calcium, for constructing protection and structure.

Clams, snails, urchins, corals, some algae, and many plankton all use calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to build their shells.

Marine ecologists have only just begun to investigate the potential problems that a more acid ocean might pose to creatures in the sea. What they have found so far is alarming. Tiny plankton, zillions of which form part of the basis of the marine food chain, are usually protected by a robust and complex ball of carbonate.

But when you grow them in more acid conditions, these little shells become thinner and more frail. Even more alarming, experiments with corals show that under acid conditions, some do not make a skeleton. They sit there like a jelly glob with no sign of the complex architecture that makes coral reefs so diverse and so attractive to tourists - and to fish.

This isn't just a problem for squishy marine critters. Marine aquaculture and multimillion-dollar fisheries such as mussel farming are likely to be affected.

Tourism to coral reefs is another multimillion-dollar industry, and some economies are wholly reliant on it. There is even the suggestion that a more acid ocean could be more corrosive and thus affect shipping and ports.

The sea is growing more acid by the day. Early estimates suggested that acidity could go up 30 per cent by the end of this century. Now scientists are warning that, in the Southern Ocean, we could be seeing measurable changes within a few decades. The effects of what we have already pumped into the air are probably irreversible. There are no practical solutions or cures - no antacid for the sea's indigestion. The only thing we can do is to slow it down.

Luckily, we already want to reduce carbon emissions and know we need to stop the invisible clouds of CO2 rising into the air. We already have mechanisms in place to change how we live and travel. Ocean acidification provides another, and perhaps a more urgent, reason for continuing on this path as fast as possible.

We still have birds of prey. That is because people cared, listened and took action. Ordinary gardeners stopped using DDT, and eventually governments also responded. Now you can't buy DDT and you can't spray it around.

Geologists, who specialise in the long- term view, are beginning to call the present time period the anthropocene epoch.

They mean that the activities of humans are so pervasive that they will be the dominant signal in the geologic record of our time. So far it appears that the anthropocene will be renowned for its great extinction event - a period in which Earth became so unhealthy that hundreds of species of animals and plants ceased to be. Given that acidification is to be added to the effects of coastal pollution, ongoing development, sedimentation and over-fishing, it is not surprising that our coastal ecosystems are set to crash.

We can choose to make a difference. Just don't drive. Turn off the power. Think about all those millions of plankton making their complex and perfect skeletons. Think about that exhaust, puffing out the back of every car, each little bit of CO2 heading into the air, into the sea, a little drop of poison for our planet. Each of us can make small differences. Think about what you could do, today, to save just one plankton, just one coral. Because a sea without shells is like springtime without birds.

• Associate Professor Abigail M Smith is a geochemist in the Marine Science Department at the University of Otago.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/2407463/Spectre-of-seas-without-shells


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 30, 2009, 05:16:24 am

Tip of the iceberg for wonder

By KATARINA FILIPE - The Timaru Herald | Friday, 29 May 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2455059s-29May09.jpg)

ADRIFT: Wintry conditions have blown icebergs down
to the southern end of the Tasman Glacier terminal lake.


Iceberg fans are in for a treat this winter.

More than 50 icebergs of all shapes and sizes have been blown down to the southern end of the Tasman Glacier terminal lake, giving people the chance for a close inspection.

Strong winds at Aoraki Mount Cook blew the icebergs down the lake and cold temperatures froze the waters around them, leaving them stuck in place.

Glacier Explorers operations manager Bede Ward said it was a "fitting finale to an absolutely bumper season".

"All the ice in the lake will be our iceberg ‘stock’ for next summer."

Glacier Explorers passengers have seen the largest iceberg calvings on the terminal lake since the season began last September.

In the most significant single calving in the lake's 25-year existence, a giant slab of ice about 250 metres long by 250m wide by 80m high plunged into the lake, causing a three-metre tidal wave on February 10.

A second iceberg about quarter of the size calved from the face soon afterwards.

The event followed a huge chunk of turquoise basal ice eight metres wide and 30m high calving from an iceberg into the lake on February 04.

Mr Ward said reports of the retreat of the two-million-year-old, 27-kilometre-long Tasman Glacier had been a great drawcard for business.

"We're getting more and more icebergs now so we're naming them in order to track and communicate changes," he said.

Since the terminal lake began forming in 1973, the Tasman Glacier's retreat had quickened because the lake was expanding all the time and causing a more rapid melt of the glacier face, Mr Ward said.

"From now on I think we may be looking at major calving from the terminal face as an annual event."


http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/2454997/Tip-of-the-iceberg-for-wonder


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on May 30, 2009, 08:48:00 am
Quote
Iceberg fans are in for a treat this winter.

Are people these something like train spotters?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 27, 2009, 04:27:12 pm

Ice caps melting — astronaut

REUTERS | 12:52AM - Monday, 27 July 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2677927s-27Jul09.jpg)

EARTH BELOW: Space Shuttle Endeavour is seen docked
to the International Space Station. A Canadian astronaut,
returning to space after 12 years, says Earth's ice caps
appear to be melting. — NASA.


A Canadian astronaut aboard the International Space Station says it looks like Earth's ice caps have melted since he was last in orbit 12 years ago.

Bob Thirsk, who is two months into a planned six-month stay aboard the station, said he is mostly in awe when he looks out the window, particularly at the sliver of atmosphere wrapped around the planet.

"It's a very thin veil of atmosphere around the Earth that keeps us alive," Thirsk said during an in-flight news conference.

"Most of the time when I look out the window I'm in awe. But there are some effects of the human destruction of the Earth as well.

"This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time," Thrisk said. "That saddens me a little bit."

If Thrisk needs a sympathetic ear, he has 12 crewmates with him, at least until Tuesday, when visiting shuttle Endeavour astronauts are scheduled to depart.

The astronauts delivered a Japanese-built experiment platform, installed new batteries for the station's solar power system and stashed spare parts to keep the station operational after shuttles are retired next year after seven more flights.

The $100 billion station, a project of 16 nations, is nearing completion after more than a decade of work.

Endeavour astronauts Chris Cassidy and Tom Marshburn are scheduled for a fifth spacewalk on Monday to rewire a station gyroscope, fix insulation on its Canadian-built robot and install television cameras needed to guide a Japanese cargo vessel into its docking port. The HTV cargo hauler is slated for its debut flight in September.

"All in all I think it's an extremely successful mission in spite of a lot of really interesting curveballs that have been thrown our way," Endeavour commander Mark Polansky told reporters.

The latest glitch occurred on Saturday when the station's US air-scrubber shut down, prompting NASA to call in extra flight controllers to oversee the device manually. The machine strips deadly carbon dioxide, a by-product of respiration, from the station's air.

"It's not something that we want to do long term, because (of) the number of commands we have to send from the ground. But in the short term, we've got the carbon dioxide removal system back up and running and operating at close to its normal capacity," Smith said.

A backup air-scrubber is due to be launched aboard NASA's next shuttle mission, targeted for launch in August.

Endeavour is due back at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida on Friday.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/2677865/Ice-caps-melting-astronaut


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 28, 2009, 07:22:30 pm
Maybe global warming has not come here yet its freezing cold,

I was expecting sunny days and my own beach  ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 28, 2009, 07:46:11 pm
I was expecting sunny days and my own beach  ::)


In Woodville?  :o  ::)

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/TooFunny.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LaughingPinkPanther.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/ROFLMAO_Dog.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LaughingHard.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/ItchyBugga.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 28, 2009, 07:58:35 pm
I was in woodville once when the sun shone [well actually, I've been in Woodville often - just not usually when the sun was shining] - and I'm sure theres a beach somewhere near the bridge over the Manawatu....


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 28, 2009, 09:08:46 pm
We do get realy hot days in the summer but its freezing cold right now and there is still no sign of my beach yet. :o


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 30, 2009, 08:41:08 pm

Arctic tundra hotter, boosts global warming

REUTERS | 9:39AM - 30 July 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2703430s-30Jul09.jpg)

GETTING HOT IN HERE: Arctic tundra around
the world are heating up rapidly and boosting
the process of global warming. — REUTERS.


Regions of Arctic tundra around the world are heating up very rapidly, releasing more greenhouse gases than predicted and boosting the process of global warming, a leading expert said.

Professor Greg Henry of the University of British Columbia also said higher temperatures meant larger plants were starting to spread across the tundra, which is usually covered by small shrubs, grasses and lichen. The thicker plant cover means the region is getting darker and absorbing more heat.

He said tundra covers about 15 percent of the world's surface and makes up around 30 percent of Canadian territory.

Henry, who has been working in the Arctic since the early 1980s, said he had measured "a very substantial change" in the tundra over the last three decades, citing greater emissions and plant growth.

Since 1970, he said, temperatures in the tundra region had risen by one degree Celsius per decade — equal to the highest rates of warming found anywhere on the planet.

"We're finding that the tundra is actually giving off a lot more nitrous oxide and methane than anyone had thought before," Henry told reporters on a conference call from Resolute in the northern Canadian territory of Nunavut.

"We're really trying to get a handle on this because if (further tests show) that's true, this actually changes the entire greenhouse gas budget for the North, and that has global implications," he said.

Scientists blame climate change on a surge in emissions of greenhouse gases. The effects in Canada's North and Arctic regions have been particularly notable.

Henry said his research station in Nunavut had recorded record high temperatures virtually every summer since the early 1990s. The warmer temperatures mean plants are growing bigger and faster, while larger species are spreading northward.

"The tundra is getting a lot weedier all the way around the globe. This has major implications," said Henry, who also chairs an international project studying tundra.

"You're changing the color of the surface of the earth by making it darker... so the consequence of that is increased warming again."

Some scientists also fear that as the permafrost in the Arctic melts, it will release vast amounts of carbon and methane into the atmosphere.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2703353/Arctic-tundra-hotter-boosts-global-warming


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 11, 2009, 03:51:54 pm

Hotel collapses in Taiwan typhoon

Climate-change havoc

Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz) with Associated Press | Monday, 10 August 2009

A six-story hotel in Chihpen, Taitung county, Taiwan collapses and plunges into a river after floodwaters eroded its base as typhoon Morakot passed through the area. The Typhoon caused the worst flooding in the area in 50 years.

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2737127s-10Aug09.jpg)

                      The hotel on a lean before collapsing. — Associated Press/ETTV Television.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2737132s-10Aug09.jpg)

                            The hotel begins to topple. — Associated Press/ETTV Television.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2737134s-10Aug09.jpg)

                        The toppling hotel hits the water. — Associated Press/ETTV Television.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/2737141s-10Aug09.jpg)

         The full weight of a six storey hotel creates an enormous splash. — Associated Press/ETTV Television.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/2737145/Hotel-collapses-in-Taiwan-typhoon


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Ferney on August 11, 2009, 03:58:19 pm
Worst flooding in 50 years.  Wow!     

50 years is a just a speck in time.     


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 11, 2009, 04:57:11 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons/789TheTaskOfReducingEmissions11Aug0.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 02, 2009, 03:01:23 pm

The NATs “do” enviroment stuff....

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons/2823908sItsACompromise02Sep09.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 24, 2009, 10:52:04 pm

Global Warning

Faced with one of the great questions of our time — whether the Earth’s current warming is caused by humans – economist Gareth Morgan did what only a philanthropist can do: hired some top scientists to give him the answer.

By JOANNE BLACK - The Listener | Vol.218 No.3600 - May 09-15, 2009

Riding her motorbike north through Alaska, or across the Sahara, Joanne Morgan would occasionally pause to point out something — desertification, perhaps, or dying forests — and say to her husband, “See that? That’s caused by global warming.”

“I got bloody sick of it, to be honest,” Gareth Morgan says now. “And finally I said to her, ‘Joanne, for God’s sake, you can’t possibly make such sweeping statements‘.” Her answer was that if he had read Tim Flannery’s climate-change book The Weather Makers, as she had, then he would understand.

So, he started reading it, but instead of being convinced that human activity — most notably the burning of fossil fuels — was causing global warming, Morgan finished each page with more questions than answers. He decided to hire some climate change policy researchers to investigate.

Early last year, he again read Flannery’s book, this time while heading to Antarctica, rolling around in an icebreaker in the Southern Ocean, accompanied by friend and writer John McCrystal, also a climate change sceptic.

“I was intrigued, but I wasn’t convinced by the arguments for anthropogenic [from human activity] global warming,” Morgan says in his company boardroom in a downtown office block overlooking Wellington Harbour. “I’m naturally sceptical about everything. God, I come from the financial sector and you get pretty sceptical about people’s behaviour there.”

His researchers returned with papers that were no use because they were about policy, “and I didn’t even know if climate change was true. I thought, isn’t it intriguing that countries are spending all this public policy money yet we don’t take the first step, which is to ask, ‘What is the problem we are trying to solve?’”

After speaking to Victoria University Professor of Geology Peter Barrett, Morgan decided to hire the best scientists in the world on both sides. The result is Morgan and McCrystal’s new book Poles Apart — Beyond the Shouting, Who’s Right About Climate Change?

Morgan likens the process to being on a jury: hearing all the evidence from both sides, but also subjecting the scientists to rigorous questioning and cross-examination before deciding which side has the most scientific credibility. Along the way, Morgan and McCrystal became deeply exasperated with what they considered the equal willingness of both camps to be activists for their cause, obscuring efforts to get at the science.

“People have very emotive, very predetermined views, and that typifies both sides,” says Morgan. “We’ve had some heated sessions with our alarmist scientists where they’ve been on the verge of walking out, saying, ‘How dare you question our conclusions?’ I had to keep saying, ‘Look, I have a completely open mind.’ But their fervour has caught the public, so they have found themselves – on the basis of partial knowledge – being rounded into either camp rather than simply being able to ask for some clarity and for someone to explain why it’s true and why it isn’t.

“If I had one message, it is, ‘For God’s sake, stay objective, don’t get wound up by either side’s polemics and emotion,’” says Morgan.

“It’s like people feel they must have a cause, and it turns reasonable people into nutters and they don’t see it. They only see it on the other side. I would say to the guys who helped me, ‘I don’t want to know about the other stuff, this is a scientific inquiry, for Christ’s sake’, and they’d get really offended. They might be professors and they’re not used to being spoken to like that; they are used to intimidating the public because the public is ignorant.”

Initially, Morgan says he and McCrystal were like weathervanes, persuaded by whatever they had just read. “You’d read a paper in the morning that said climate change was nonsense, and it would convince you, then in the afternoon you’d pick up a paper [that was] predicting hellfire and brimstone and us all being dead by dawn, and that would convince you.”

During their researching, both men learnt a lot of science. In doing so they have crystallised for themselves and their readers the core arguments of both sides of the climate change debate, and decided that anthropogenic global warming is the more credible argument.

“Are we satisfied as jurors that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the warming is anthropogenic?” asks Morgan. “No, we’re not. But if we rephrase the question and ask, if, on the weight of the evidence presented, we think the cause of the warming is anthropogenic or natural, then we would say anthropogenic. But I would bear in mind that John Maynard Keynes quote with which we end the book, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’ There could be some new development out tomorrow that makes us all look like chumps.”

Clearly, although they’re open to that possibility, the pair think it unlikely. Science, they explain, is on the side of global warming having human causes, notwithstanding huge variations in the world’s climate long before humans evolved.

Although there is endless argument about global temperatures in the past, the measurements since about 1900, and certainly more recently, are sufficiently reliable for there to be general agreement that in recent decades to 1998, the world’s temperature warmed, although temperatures have been stable in the past 10 years. But a decade does not mean much in the scale of climate change, and the trend is still for increasing warmth.

Even if the historical temperature statistics can be disputed (and they are), the pair say there is no argument that warmth causes ice to melt. And at the North Pole, ice is melting very quickly because Arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the average global rate over the past 100 years. Poles Apart says that after the thaw of 2007, Arctic sea ice was at its lowest recorded level since satellite-borne microwave measurements began in 1978; the thaw of 2008 was the second lowest. Other studies, using the best estimates, suggest that in the mid-20th century the Arctic was the warmest it had been since records began in 1840, and it has continued to warm since then.

A similar level of thawing is not occurring in the Antarctic, but this, according to scientists, does not mean Arctic thawing can be shrugged off as a regional rather than a global-climate-related event. For a start, the Antarctic has a much denser thermal mass so can stay cooler longer. Further, the Arctic ice is thinner, so when it cracks apart it exposes the dark ocean water to the sun. Ice reflects heat back into space but the ocean absorbs that heat. Because of that, one of the concerns is that the Arctic risks entering a “vicious feedback loop”.

The Arctic picture is interesting, and possibly disturbing, depending on your point of view, but like many other observable changes — the expanding Gobi Desert, the devastation caused by pests in areas where cold would normally have killed them off, coral bleaching — evidence that the world is warming is not the same as evidence that human behaviour, such as burning fossil fuels, is the cause.

After all, as Morgan points out, in its history the Earth has been warmer than it is now. It has gone without ice for millions of years. And even knowing that ice-core data shows the speed of the current warming is without precedent in 2-5 millennia does not in itself mean this current period — which falls outside the cycle of warming caused by the rhythms of the sun — is man-made. It is unusual, yes; it is fast, yes, but are humans to blame?

Yes to that, too, Poles Apart concludes. The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide in which the carbon isotopes occur in a different ratio to that of CO2 released in the pre-industrial era. Results from isotope ratio mass spectrometers can and do accurately reveal that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuel, and CO2 is one of the gases that is creating an excessive greenhouse effect, partly by increasing the rate of evaporation, which means there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. The vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, trapping infrared radiation in the atmosphere and thus warming the Earth.

There is much, much more to the theory and science of global warming than this, including the latent heat already in the oceans (the heat stored in the top 3.2m of the ocean is equivalent to the amount of heat in the entire atmosphere, scientists conclude), which means even if humans stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, there is still at least another 50 years’ worth of “committed warming” to be experienced. And, plainly, humans will not stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the two authors seem to conclude is as willing as any other participant in the debate to play politics, forecasts that if atmospheric CO2 doubles from its pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, and beyond the current 387ppm to 560ppm (which the IPCC considers a “low-emissions scenario”), the climate is likely to warm by about 3°. So far, it has warmed by about 0.8° over the past 150 years.

Actual numbers are hard to predict because there are a number of significant moderating effects on temperatures, in particular clouds, which are extremely difficult to factor into computer modelling of the climate. The IPCC’s “mid-range” scenario of emissions suggests concentrations of CO2 could reach 800ppm by 2100, which could mean an increase of 3.3° from present levels. And as Poles Apart points out, if 3° doesn’t sound like much, people should remember that in any 50-year period, the average temperature varies by usually no more than 0.2°, and there is no evidence Earth has ever been, on average, in the period of human habitation, more than 2° warmer than it is now. Nor is there evidence to suggest Homo sapiens have experienced higher atmospheric CO2 levels than currently exist.

“If we accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, we must at least evaluate the prospect that we may soon be inhabiting a world whose climate is different to that to which our species has adapted,” Morgan and McCrystal say in Poles Apart. “After all, greenhouse-gas concentrations seem set to keep rising at the equivalent of 1.5ppm of CO2 per year.”

In the course of the research McCrystal has gone from being a sceptic to a believer (or an “alarmist”, to use the authors’ terminology) but, like Morgan, he says he is open to evidence that they may have got it wrong.

“At this stage it is important to keep open minds. It is still on a knife-edge for me, and it’s always possible something is about to come along that will tip me back the other way, but at the moment there is insufficient evidence to do that.”

“The position we reached is that the science of anthropogenic global warming is almost impossible to argue with. Sceptics are light on coherent propositions that stack up against the coherent proposition on the other side.”

But McCrystal says what gives the debate its urgency is that no one can wait for absolute certainty because the stakes are too high.

Indeed, because the book is devoted to exploring whether global warming is man-made, it ends just when it is getting interesting. If global warming is man-made, what can be done to stop it?

In Morgan’s assessment, the scenario is bleak. “If you ask by how much do we have to reduce emissions in order to [make a difference], I look at the numbers that are required and there’s not a show, not a shit-show of that happening. My first pass at it is, ‘You’ve got to be joking‘.”

“The IPCC gives a series of scenarios and says, ‘All is not lost.’ I struggle to believe them. I’m a natural pessimist anyway, but the cuts in emissions that are required make me think they’ve put the rose-tinted glasses on in order not to spook everybody. I’m a wee bit in the James Lovelock camp in the sense that I think, ‘Shit, it’s a tall order.’ You’ve got to hope the scientists are wrong about the whole bloody theory, but I don’t think they are.”

“But then, how many times in the past have we seen technology solve apparently insurmountable problems? The only thing that worries me about this one is the lag – the lagged effects like the ocean, and by the time we collectively, as a world, say, ‘Crisis! Crisis!’, well, sorry, mate, we should have done that 50 years ago.”

The uncertainty over whether global warming is anthropogenic, and then trying to calculate exactly what effect it will have, makes the whole issue a public-policy nightmare, Morgan says.

“The dilemma you have as a human being is that to reduce this problem and deal with your carbon footprint, you upset the livelihood of people in other places. Growing crops for biofuels was a classic example. It displaced food crops, which put up the price of food, which might not affect you and me, but in Africa that’s life or death. So, every policy course you take has costs, and every policy has only a probability of being right. It’s not certain, especially in this issue where you’re talking about such long time periods. That’s why it deserves the respect of the public having a reasonable view, rather than getting in camps shouting at each other.”

Morgan says the public policy dilemma is akin to former prime minister Robert Muldoon seeing the price of oil rise to $80 a barrel and thinking, “We can’t live with that”, so embarking on a huge programme of borrowing to build the Think Big projects, aimed at greater energy self-sufficiency, only to have the price of oil drop back to $20 a barrel while the country is saddled with debt.

“You must look at the counterfactual, which is, ‘What is the cost to society if you’re wrong?’”

McCrystal says the danger of saying global warming is already too advanced to stop is that people then say they might as well maintain their levels of consumption and drive their Hummers, “and that may well make the situation worse than it needs to be”.

“So, policies to mitigate the effect of global warming mean not only making adaptations to a warmer world, but also making the world the least warm it needs to be from the position we are in now. The bleaker end of the spectrum now seems to be: ‘We can’t stop this, but we still need to act now so the problem does not become even worse than it otherwise threatens to be’.”

The pair think any solution must be global, but New Zealand’s role is likely to be small.

McCrystal says, “New Zealand is such a tiny contributor to the whole problem, and most of what we do contribute is actually pretty difficult to tackle unless we mean to change everything about the way we live. Needless to say, we are a primary producer and it is our primary production that creates most of our most potent greenhouse gases, and what do we do otherwise? It doesn’t make any sense to cripple ourselves as a country in order to make such a slight difference to the overall problem.”

He says although it is not talked about much, global warming will bring benefits to some parts of the world, “and we just happen to be one of them”.

“Parts of New Zealand will be better off,” McCrystal says. “New Zealand could be in a position of being a lot more self-sustaining in terms of energy needs than ever before. We probably won’t get much warmer, but we probably will get windier, which, ironically, will make us capable of building wind farms in more locations. We’ll get wetter along the West Coast, which is great for the hydro lakes, and if it is a bit warmer there will be less demand on electricity.

“It will be disastrous for the East Coast,” he says. “We’ll get more droughts and pastoral farming will be a thing of the past in areas like Wairarapa, Marlborough and even parts of Canterbury, but there will be other benefits in other parts of the country.

“So, if you’re trying to convince New Zealanders that we need to act, and we need to radically change everything about our lives because of global warming, then you need to be asking them to save the planet, not save themselves. And how do you do that? It’s like trying to get Americans to care about the Third World while America is going along quite nicely, thank you. Why should they care? It goes to everything that is fundamental about political philosophy, which is what really excited me about the whole thing.”

Morgan says serious efforts to reduce emissions have to include China and India.

“There is no point shagging around trying to send an example to outermost Kenya of how they should reduce their carbon footprint. If you really want to have a material impact on carbon emissions, you’d say to China, ‘Stop building those bloody coal-fired power stations.’ Because if we’re looking on the scale of materiality, at the margin of where the next bit of CO2 is coming from, that’s where.

“If it’s a global problem, then the global solution is to say, ‘Yes, China, we’ll have free trade with you, but first please do this.’ And both sides will pay the price – some people will be out of work and goods won’t be as cheap. So, we have a deal, right, because we’re both losers. But at least we’re not going to fry.

“At the moment we’re on this thing where some are in Kyoto [the protocol] and some are not, and it’s like the World Trade Talks where a round of talks can go for years and then break down. But if global warming is true, we can’t afford that timelag. You can’t afford a GATT-round approach if you want to honour the chance of getting it right.”


http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3600/features/13260/printable/global_warning.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 11, 2009, 09:25:41 pm

Ice shelf finding ‘debunks claims of sceptics’

By KIRAN CHUG - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Wednesday, 11 November 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/3050125s-11Nov09.jpg)

DEEP FROZEN: A mooring line encased in platelet ice
after being immersed in supercooled water from under
the McMurdo Ice Shelf. Alex Gough of Otago University
is in the background. — ANDREW MAHONEY.


New Zealand scientists say massive ice shelves are protecting Antarctica from experiencing the same rapid decline in sea ice as the Arctic.

The research team says the discovery further debunks the claims of sceptics who have pointed to the continent's growth as evidence against global warming.

The team was led by Otago University physics researcher Andrew Mahoney, who said the eight-month study focused on a topic scientists understood little about.

Dr Mahoney said findings would help climate scientists make predictions about the future.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research oceanographer Mike Williams said the research explained why Antarctic sea ice was not decreasing at a similar rate to that of the Arctic.

Figures from America's National Snow and Ice Data Center show that Arctic sea ice shrank by about 4 per cent of 500,000 square kilometres each decade during the past 30 years. By contrast, Antarctic sea ice was not believed to have changed much in size and may have increased slightly.

However, Antarctic Research Centre director Tim Naish, who was not part of the research team, said the latest data issued in a report by Nasa indicated that the amount of Antarctic sea ice lost since 2003 could have doubled.

Dr Naish said the New Zealand team's findings were exciting as they would help scientists understand which parts of the continent would become vulnerable in the future.

Scientists already knew the hole in the ozone layer meant a mass of cold air was channelled over Antarctica, suppressing the effects of warming temperatures.

This study added another explanation to why the sea ice was not decreasing rapidly, and provided a more complete response to the questions of global warming sceptics, Dr Naish said.

"The simple answer is that the balance of evidence is completely overwhelming."

Although the ice shelves provided sea ice with a buffer against warming waters, that buffer would not last forever, he said.

Scientists needed now to understand why the ice shelves provided a better buffer in some areas, so as to predict how fast and how much sea levels could rise.

This was one of the most serious consequences of climate change, and Dr Naish said it was an area that would be central to discussions in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate change conference next month.

The more scientists could do to understand why and predict when sea ice would decrease, would help determine sea level rises, he said. Once the buffer of ice shelves was lost — and Dr Naish said it was unknown how stable they were – the Antarctic sea ice would be less protected from global warming.

That could lead to sea-level rises around New Zealand's coastline.

Dr Mahoney said the findings meant that in the future climate-change scientists would need to take into account how warm water would interact with ice shelves, and not just floating ice-sheets.

Dr Williams said understanding how sea ice would change would help scientists better predict how weather systems would change in the southern hemisphere.


—————————————————————————

WHAT THE SCIENTISTS FOUND

  • Massive ice shelves make up half the Antarctic coastline;

  • Cold water melts from these ice shelves;

  • The melted water protects the ice sheets from the warming effects of climate change;

  • This causes ice sheets to grow in winter, although they still melt in summer;

  • This is why Antarctic sea ice has not declined as quickly as Arctic sea ice in response to global warming.

Arctic sea ice:

  • Is landlocked;

  • Covers about 15 million sq km in the winter;

  • Melts to cover about 7 million sq km in the summer;

  • Extends all the way to the North Pole.

Antarctic sea ice:

  • Floats freely in the ocean;

  • Covers about 18 million sq km in the winter;

  • Melts to cover about 3 million sq km in the summer;

  • Does not reach the South Pole.

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3050096/Ice-shelf-finding-debunks-claims-of-sceptics (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3050096/Ice-shelf-finding-debunks-claims-of-sceptics)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on November 12, 2009, 09:12:01 am
And if all else fails, you merely silence  [literally] thopse critics who disagree with the Global Warming Machine...

Quote
Outspoken journalist and author Ian Wishart has been put on mute at a climate science conference.

Wishart, whose book Air Con is sceptical about man-made global warming, was appalled to be shut out of a phone conference with New Zealand's top climate scientists yesterday.

Organisers admitted muting Wishart's phone for "time management" because there were 25 journalists trying to ask questions of the five assembled scientists in Wellington.

"What they were after was a carefully stage-managed presentation," Wishart told The Press. "In my view it was a propaganda stunt."



http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3054281/Muted-Wishart-angry-at-scientists


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 12, 2009, 07:28:39 pm

Seas may rise even higher

By KIRAN CHUG - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Thursday, 12 November 2009

Scientists are predicting seas will rise higher than the levels the Environment Ministry advises local councils to plan for.

Delegates in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate change conference next month are to be told of the new predictions, which draw on new satellite images of Greenland and Antarctica.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted a sea level rise of up to 59 centimetres by the end of the century. However, the director of the Antarctic Research Centre, Tim Naish, said the international community now believed sea levels could rise by 1.9 metres.

Environment Minister Nick Smith said the Government was working on establishing a national environmental standard on planning for sea levels, which he hoped would be in place next year.

He hoped to put the standard out for consultation next year, but said it was likely that councils would still be required to plan for a rise of 59cm.

"The Government is not going to consider adjusting its policy every week," Dr Smith said.

In its advice to councils, the ministry says that as sea levels rise, more high tides will flood coastal land. Waves will have more chance of attacking backshores and foredunes, and erosion of beaches will worsen. More estuaries and harbours will flood, cliffs will retreat, and existing coastal defences could be damaged. That could leave the land and buildings behind existing sea walls without protection.

Ministry senior analyst Warren Gray said the current advice to councils was to plan for a sea level rise of 50cm, and consider what a rise of 80cm could mean. He said some were planning for sea level rises of up to 1.5 metres.

"We want people to be safe, but not building defences that are not necessary," he said.

A new IPCC report is not expected to be published until 2013, but Dr Gray said that if an interim report was completed, the ministry's advice could be reviewed.

The new data was presented at a media briefing held by the Science Media Centre and NZ Climate Change Centre in Wellington yesterday.

Dr Naish said he believed that the new figures would impress the urgency of the problem upon policy makers.

They were particularly relevant for New Zealand, where such a large portion of the population lived on the coastline, he said.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3054107/Seas-may-rise-even-higher (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3054107/Seas-may-rise-even-higher)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on November 15, 2009, 04:02:33 pm
East coast swelters as heatwave continues

(http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,7174400,00.jpg)


THE heat has left Melbourne and Adelaide sweltering will hit Sydney this week bringing temperatures nearing 40C tomorrow and remaining in the high 30s though to next weekend.


And there is no relief in sight just yet.

High temperatures are expected for the rest of summer. The bureau predicts minimum temperatures will be well above average from November to January.

Emergency services on alert

In South Australia emergency crews were kept busy containing a series of blazes in blistering heat, with three of the largest fires destroying nearly 300ha.

On Yorke Peninsula, farm machinery is believed to have started a 60ha grass fire at Maitland about 11.30am.

Six Country Fire Service appliances, a bulk water carrier and specialist farm units brought the flames under control within an hour and protected a house.

At Wynarka, about 50km east of Murray Bridge, about 200ha was destroyed in a grass fire on the Tailem Bend-Karoonda road that started at about 1pm. Police closed the road after visibility was reduced because of thick smoke, and re-opened it by 3.30pm.

CFS spokeswoman Karina Loxton appealed for continued vigilance over the coming few days.

"We urge everyone to do the right thing and watch their activities, particularly in total fire ban areas," she said. Meanwhile, a number of events have been cancelled today due to the heat.

These include the Rundle Street Market, The Big Aussie Swap event that was to have been held in Whitmore Square, the Gilles St markets and the Ovarian Cancer Challenge Walkathon scheduled for 10am at Semaphore.

Monarto zoo is also closed due to the threat of bushfires.

In Victoria temperatures in the Mallee region are predicted to hit 41C on Saturday and Sunday and 37C on Monday.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) state duty officer Dennis Ward warned people conducting their own bushfire preparations in parts of the state without fire restrictions to remain vigilant.

"People need to be aware that we've had a long, hot, dry period and it's going to continue for bit,'' he said.

"The main thing is that people be aware and be careful, particularly those doing their own fire protection.''

El Nino driving temperatures

NSW Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Elly Spark said the hot weather was caused by a backdrop of El Nino and a very hot air mass over central Australia.

Northwesterly winds, generated by a high-pressure system in the Tasman Sea, were carrying this hot air to the NSW coast.

"Generally, conditions over inland NSW have been hot to very hot, and they will continue that way for some time," Ms Spark said.

"On November 3, the temperature at Penrith hit 39.4 degrees.

"There will be a change on Tuesday, but by the end of the week conditions are going to get very hot again.

"On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, temperatures in western Sydney will be on the rise.

"Penrith is expected to have a 37-degree day on Thursday, followed by 39 degrees on Friday."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26349733-421,00.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on November 15, 2009, 07:36:14 pm
And dont we live in the luck country with its brrrrrrrrr cold weather  ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 23, 2009, 07:59:29 pm

NZ glaciers continuing to shrink

NZPA | 10:55AM - Monday, 23 November 2009

New Zealand's glaciers are continuing to shrink, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) says.

NIWA's annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers showed they lost much more ice than they gained between April 2008 and March 2009.

Scientists flew over 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps and Kaikoura area and photographed the positions of snowlines on glaciers during the survey.

NIWA snow and ice scientist Jordy Hendrikx said above-normal temperatures, near or below-normal rainfall and above-normal sunshine were among the reasons for the continued shrinking.

This year's snowline was, on average, 95 metres above where it needed to be to keep the ice mass constant, NIWA said.

This indicated the loss of glacier mass observed in the 2007-2008 survey had continued.

Over the past 33 years, there had been an overall decrease in the glacier mass balance, despite periods where the balance had increased for a few years.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3088709/NZ-glaciers-continuing-to-shrink (http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3088709/NZ-glaciers-continuing-to-shrink)



Glaciers continue to shrink

New Zealand’s glaciers lost significant ice mass again last summer.

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (http://www.niwa.co.nz) | 23 November 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA000r_SnowGraph.jpg)

When one portion of snow melts, it takes about two equivalent portions of snow fall to keep a glacier's mass balance the same.

The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has just released the results of its annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers, showing continued loss of glacier mass.

The survey uses a small fixed wing aircraft to fly over 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps and Kaikoura. Scientists take photographs and then analyse the images to determine the position of the snowline after the summer melt but before the first winter snowfall. This provides an index of the mass balance or ’health’ of the glaciers of New Zealand. The survey has been going since 1977.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA001r_RollestonGlacier.jpg)
                                                        ROLLESTON GLACIER

NIWA Snow and Ice Scientist Dr Jordy Hendrikx says weather patterns over the course of the year from April 2008 to March 2009 meant that overall the glaciers had lost much more ice than they had gained. This was mainly due to the combination of above normal temperatures and near normal or below normal rainfall for the Southern Alps during winter, and La Niña-like patterns producing more northerly flows creating normal-to-above normal temperatures, above normal sunshine, and well below normal precipitation for the Southern Alps particularly during late summer.

The higher the snowline, the more snow is lost to feed the glacier. On average, the snowline this year was about 95 metres above where it would need to be to keep the ice mass constant. This indicates that the loss of glacier mass observed in 2007-08 has continued.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA002r_GodleyAndClassenGlaciers.jpg)
                                                   GODLEY & CLASSEN GLACIERS

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA003r_AorakiAndTasmanGlacierAand.jpg)
                           AORAKI-MOUNT COOK, TASMAN GLACIER & HOCHSTETTER ICEFALL

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA004r_AorakiAndTasmanGlacierLake.jpg)
                                 AORAKI-MOUNT COOK & TASMAN GLACIER TERMINAL LAKE

When studying and reporting what is happening to glaciers, it is important to look at more than one factor. The position of the end of summer snowline is only part of the story; in New Zealand, an estimated 90% of ice loss from glaciers since 1976 is due to down-wasting and lake calving. NIWA’s snowline surveys show an overall decrease in the glacier mass balance (and thereby volumes) over the past 33 years — but this is punctuated by periods where the prevailing weather conditions caused the glacier mass balance to increase for a few years.

Similarly, glacier terminus position (the “length” of a glacier) can be misleading when considered on its own because total volume can be decreasing even while terminus length is increasing.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA005r_BonarGlacierAndMountAspiri.jpg)
                                              BONAR GLACIER & MOUNT ASPIRING

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA006r_ParkPass.jpg)
                                                               PARK PASS

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/NIWA007r_TutokoAndTheDonneGlacier.jpg)
                                               MOUNT TUTOKO & DONNE GLACIER

For more information, contact:

Dr Jordy Hendrikx
NIWA Snow & Ice Scientist
Mob: +64 21 039 4711

For images:

Large sized high resolution glacier photographs and graphs showing the changes in glacier ice mass can be downloaded at ftp://ftp.niwa.co.nz/niwamedia/glaciers (http://ftp://ftp.niwa.co.nz/niwamedia/glaciers).

Background information:

1. Worldwide, glaciers are regarded as a useful indicator of global warming, but New Zealand’s glaciers are more complicated because they have their source in areas of extremely high precipitation. West of the Main Divide in the Southern Alps, more than 10 metres (10 000 mm) of precipitation falls each year as clouds are pushed up over the sharply rising mountain ranges. This means the mass and volume of New Zealand’s glaciers is sensitive to changing wind and precipitation patterns as well as to temperature. So, for example, the glaciers advanced during most of the 1980s and 1990s when the area experienced about a 15% increase in precipitation, associated with more El Niño events and stronger westerly winds over New Zealand. The glaciers in parts of Norway are similar.

2. Despite the sensitivity of New Zealand glaciers to changes in both precipitation and temperature, the volume of ice in the Southern Alps dropped by roughly 50% during the last century. New Zealand’s temperature increased by about 1°C over the same period.

3. Globally, most glaciers are retreating. Of the glaciers for which there are continuous data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the mean annual loss in ice thickness since 1980 remains close to half a metre per year. The Service has said that the loss in ice mass “leaves no doubt about the accelerating change in climatic conditions”. For world glacier data, see www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms (http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms)

4. The level of the glacier snowlines is not necessarily closely related to the amount of snow that falls on the country’s ski fields during winter. Most of the popular ski fields are east of the Main Divide, or in the North Island. Mount Hutt, for instance, gets its snow from big southeasterlies, whereas most of the glaciers are fed by westerlies. The melt season is also of critical importance, so while a glacier may receive “normal” snow accumulation, it could be subject to above normal melt and the net result is a higher snowline and less ice.

5. An estimated 90% of the ice loss from New Zealand glaciers in the Southern Alps since 1976 is due to down-wasting and lake calving mainly from 12 of the largest glaciers on the eastern side of the main divide. These processes are:


  • Down-wasting: ice melts from the top surface of the trunk. Trunks go from their original convex shape to near-straight or even concave (slight hollow in the centre).

  • Lake calving: ice melting at the foot of glaciers & meltwater forming lakes. Some chunks of ice ‘calve’ off glaciers into the lakes (like ice bergs).

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/glaciers-continue-to-shrink2 (http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/glaciers-continue-to-shrink2)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Sir Blodsnogger on November 24, 2009, 06:31:26 am
Are you ready

to meet your maker?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 24, 2009, 04:08:23 pm

Shrinking glaciers curtail climbing trips

By FLEUR COGLE - The Timaru Herald | 5:00AM - Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Aoraki-Mount Cook's shrinking glaciers are forcing climbers to think more carefully about their excursions into the national park.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) yesterday released the results of its annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers, showing the glaciers continue to shrink. The news is no surprise to those who know the national park.

Veteran mountaineer Gordon Hasell, who has been climbing in the area since the 50s, said that during the 60s the lake at the base of the Tasman Glacier was the same size as the duck pond in Timaru's Botanical Gardens.

"It's now about 4km long."

With a new lake and the increased exposure of the glacier's moraine walls, climbers were being forced to change the way they approached the park.

Mr Hasell said climbers no longer have as easy access to parts of park as they once did.

"Now the major effect excess recession has had is a greater dependence on air access."

Department of Conservation ranger Ray Bellringer said the changes had been "very spectacular and very noticeable over a period".


http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3090706/Shrinking-glaciers-curtail-climbing-trips (http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3090706/Shrinking-glaciers-curtail-climbing-trips)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 30, 2009, 07:58:51 pm

The future....

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons/3094310sNoFlashPhotography25Nov09.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 05, 2009, 01:41:50 pm

Wellington could be more like Venice by 2100

By EMILY WATT - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Saturday, 05 December 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/Wellington_2100.jpg)

SEA RISE SCENARIO: The computer graphic shows that low-lying parts of central Wellington are at risk of flooding if the sea level rises one metre.

If you want to go to the library, you'll get your feet wet, Wellington police will need boats to get to work, and parts of Customhouse Quay might get a bit soggy.

Wellington City Council has issued a graphic to show how rising sea levels would affect the capital.

"It's important to remember that, for areas such as the CBD, doing nothing is clearly not an option," councillor Ray Ahipene-Mercer said.

"Tools like this help us to assess a range of appropriate response options, and will also help people understand why it is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Local authorities should be preparing for a rise of up to one metre in sea levels by 2100, he said.

The council was shown the computer-generated graphic this week. It showed, if nothing was done to protect the city centre, low-lying parts were at risk of flooding. Sea level rise could also increase erosion and the effects of storm surge.

The council's strategy and policy committee considered this week the draft 2010 climate change action plan. It looked at cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for a rise in temperature and sea level.

Mr Ahipene-Mercer said Wellington had assets worth billions of dollars which could be affected, including roads, railway lines and the city centre.

The council planned to shift the focus to community emissions rather than just the actions of businesses and organisations.

It has set a target to cut community emissions by 3 per cent by June 2013 and committed $35 million towards plans with a climate change focus in its 2009-19 Long-Term Council Community Plan. Projects include walking and cycling plans, intensifying development in the city centre and retro-fitting homes with better insulation.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3129355/Wellington-could-be-more-like-Venice-by-2100 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3129355/Wellington-could-be-more-like-Venice-by-2100)



See the following interesting pages on the Wellington City Council website:

  • New Technology Helps City Plan for Climate Change (http://www.wellington.govt.nz/news/display-item.php?id=3780)

  • Climate Change — Introduction (http://www.wellington.govt.nz/services/environment/climate/climatechange.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 05, 2009, 05:25:22 pm

Galciers were getting smaller in 1888 too... and seeing as that dramatic waterworld graphic of downtown Wellington is being spammed across threads...




THE GLACIAL PERIOD.

Otago Witness , Issue 1893, 2 March 1888, Page 31


The intense cold of the Glacial Period must not be regarded as having been caused by conditions which were permanent in their nature. The period known to geology as the Ice Age was comparatively recent, but there is little doubt that similar periods of great cold preceded it at widely separated intervals, and that these were not occasioned by any mere terrestrial changes, but must be explained by cosmical causes. The most generally accepted explanation of these remarkable conditions is that the orbit of the earth has been in times past much more eccentric, or elongated, than now. This fact, Dr James Croll remarks in his work, " Climate and Time," would not of itself, perhaps, fully account for the low temperature producing the Glacial Period.; but through physical conditions caused by it this term of severe cold might be induced.

It is always, assumed that, owing to the precession of the equinoxes, the winter of. the Northern Hemisphere at this time occurred when the earth was in aphelion, or at the point of its orbit furthest from the sun.

Croll estimates that the heat received then 1 at this point would be so much less than now that the mid-winter temperature would be lowered to an enormous extent, and the winters would not only be much colder, but also much longer than now.
The result of this would be an enormous accumulation of snow and ice during the winter, which the short summer would not suffice to melt.

The influences which brought the Ice Age to a close are supposed by Croll to be a gradual lessening of the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the movement of the equinoxes bringing the winter solstice of the Northern Hemisphere back to perihelion, or the action of the ocean currents and the trade winds. He supposed, further, that the region of the equator was, during the Glacial Period, submerge — a fact which would tend to the free motion of the waters and the increase of the average warmth of the Southern Hemisphere, and a still further lowering of the temperature on the northern half of the globe. But the elevation of the land about the equator subsequently caused a deflection of the ocean currents northwards and the creation of the great current of the Gulf Stream, which has an enormous influence in the distribution of heat in the Northern Hemisphere.

But the important causes bringing the earth up to its present temperature, like those creating the very great depression of the Glacial Period, were those acting from without rather than existing conditions on the surface of the earth itself.

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=OW18880302.2.135.4&srpos=9&e=-------10--1----2%22ice+age%22-all


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 10:17:58 am
It's about time they bit back!!

(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/afro.gif)



UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

The UN's official panel on climate change has hit back at sceptics' claims that the case for human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was "firmly" standing by findings that a rise in the use of greenhouse gases was a factor.

It was responding to a row over the reliability of data from East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit

Leaked e-mail exchanges prompted claims that data had been manipulated.

Last month, hundreds of messages between scientists at the unit and their peers around the world were put on the internet along with other documents.

Some observers alleged one of the e-mails suggested head of the unit Professor Phil Jones wanted certain papers excluded from the UN's next major assessment of climate science.

Professor Jones, who denies this was his intention, has stood down from his post while an independent inquiry takes place.

In a statement, Professor Thomas Stocker and Professor Qin Dahe, co-chairmen of the IPCC's working group 1, condemned the act of posting the private e-mails on the internet, but avoided commenting on their content.

They went on to point to a key finding that states: "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal".

"[It] is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth."

"Through further independent scientific work involving statistical methods and a range of different climate models, these changes have been detected as significant deviations from natural climate variability and have been attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases."

They added: "The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide.

"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these e-mail exchanges."

The row comes ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit which starts on Monday.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, said it was no coincidence the information was released in the run-up to the summit.

He claimed unnamed conspirators could have paid for Russian hackers to break into the university computers to steal the e-mails.

He said the theft was a scandal and was "probably ordered" to disrupt the confidence negotiators have in the science.

Earlier, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC he would be "very surprised" if there had been any wrongdoing on the part of the East Anglia University scientists.

"We're in a moment when the world is about to make some big political decisions," he said.

"And there will be people who don't want the world to make those big decisions and they are trying to use this in part to say somehow this is all in doubt and perhaps we should put the whole thing off.

"Well, I just think they're wrong about that."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was "very clear" and called doubters a "flat Earth group".

He said: "There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change."

'Open and transparent'

Meanwhile, the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans.

Its database is a main source of analysis for the IPCC.

It has written to 188 countries for permission to publish the material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather stations.

John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that.

"So this is not an issue of whether we are confident or not in the figures for the trend in global warming, it's more about being open and transparent," he told the BBC.

The Met Office said it had already planned to publish the material long before the row and denied reports that government ministers had tried to block the publication.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397265.stm


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 06, 2009, 11:16:33 am
More about that leaked data:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” -  CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.  CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because  CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 03:03:41 pm
Being there and done that Bennyboo....

It turned out the guy who commissioned the whole thing is a oil Barron with vested interests in both mining and oil.
It kind of deflated the whole thing really......

A rather weak case in anyone's books.

If only they would show their science backing their claims then perhaps people might listen.
Attacking others is pointless unless you have something to back your own claims up...


Personally - I wish they were right and we were wrong, I wish it was all just one big mistake and it wasn't happening...
But that's not reality.

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 06, 2009, 04:50:03 pm
There is no excuse for manipulating to influence such an important area of science Dazza. 

There are people grubbing for money all over the global warming industry including bankers, politicians and scientists. 

Since 1990, Phil Jones, the so called scientist behind the latest scandal, has collected £13,700,000 British pounds (US$22,600,000) in grants... if thats not incentive to make data convenient then I dont know what is.

The machine and the show go on with increased urgency - the chorused tones that the debate is over suggests a darker side to me.

The debate isnt over for NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/ 
 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ 


Nor is it over for some former IPCC scientists - as you can see below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 04:52:56 pm
It turned out the guy who commissioned the whole thing is a oil Barron with vested interests in both mining and oil.
It kind of deflated the whole thing really......

Where's the proof that it was commissioned by anybody? The first attempt at releasing this information was at the frothing at the mouth humans are bad website Realclimate. When Gavin deleted it, it was then uploaded to Russian servers and then propagated worldwide as people realised the con. It's been spreading like wildfire ever since.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 06, 2009, 05:21:02 pm

Well I'll be darned!



New Zealand climate agency accused of data manipulation

November 25, 9:23 PM

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (CSC) today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.

At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.

...

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation

Seems we now have a New Zealand (NIWA) connection to disgraced University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU)

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 05:54:15 pm
Since 1990, Phil Jones, the so called scientist behind the latest scandal, has collected £13,700,000 British pounds (US$22,600,000) in grants... if thats not incentive to make data convenient then I dont know what is.

Not to neglect those emails over how to circumvent certain tax laws. While they might be construed as tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion it does indicate a desire to maximise profits.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 05:58:56 pm

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted.

I'll defend NIWA a little. They do have cause to adjust temperatures in that thermometer sites have moved (and so forth.) However in saying that they've adjusted them to certain "international accepted standards", standards that are now, obviously in disrepute. Also interesting is NIWA's adjusted figures "show" even greater temperature increases than they're warmist mates around the globe. Something I consider that demonstrates that NIWA, even by disreputed standards, is cooking the data.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 06:17:50 pm
It turned out the guy who commissioned the whole thing is a oil Barron with vested interests in both mining and oil.
It kind of deflated the whole thing really......

Where's the proof that it was commissioned by anybody? The first attempt at releasing this information was at the frothing at the mouth humans are bad website Realclimate. When Gavin deleted it, it was then uploaded to Russian servers and then propagated worldwide as people realised the con. It's been spreading like wildfire ever since.


The thread is here somewhere - I cant remember it's title thou!
Will keep looking.

After a very small amount of digging it all became very clear.
The guy who first released these hacked emails was the director of a large oil company up US or Canada way - he then moved over into the coal and minerals industry....

Will keep looking.
 ;D


In the meantime - I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers or other explanations explaining the sudden and rapid rises observed...  there's all this denial going on but there's nothing behind it - there's nothing on the other side of the equals sign. Remember - the climate doesn't just change 'just because' - there is always a cause, either natural or not.
So... if not humans then what (that unanswered question is now well over 5 years old on these XNC board's)?!

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 06:29:12 pm
The The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is funded by Exxon Mobile via The International Climate Science Coalition.
They are also strongly hooked up with ACT and their mate Alan Gibbs.... all $$$$$$$$ minded.......


Do you REALLY believe their opinion is unbiased?

 ???


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 06:35:27 pm

After a very small amount of digging it all became very clear.
The guy who first released these hacked emails was the director of a large oil company up US or Canada way - he then moved over into the coal and minerals industry....

So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Quote
In the meantime - I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers or other explanations explaining the sudden and rapid rises observed...  there's all this denial going on but there's nothing behind it - there's nothing on the other side of the equals sign. Remember - the climate doesn't just change 'just because' - there is always a cause, either natural or not.
So... if not humans then what (that unanswered question is now well over 5 years old on these XNC board's)?!

The same things that are causing global warming on other planets in this solar system.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 06:47:28 pm
The The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is funded by Exxon Mobile via The International Climate Science Coalition.

A Greenpeace claim isn't that credible you know. Especially since the only proof they've got is that they were paid to attend a conference that was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. It doesn't demonstrate before or afterwards funding.

Besides which NIWA is funded by the government. An organisation whose main aim in life is tax. Guess what balmy decision the warmist have come up with as the miraculous solution? Oh, right, an air tax.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 06:55:57 pm
So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Who in the world said anything about Real Climate?!
Sure wasn't me!


But since it has being brought up - here's what Real Climate has to say about it...

The CRU hack
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 20 November 2009

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


Quote
In the meantime - I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers or other explanations explaining the sudden and rapid rises observed...  there's all this denial going on but there's nothing behind it - there's nothing on the other side of the equals sign. Remember - the climate doesn't just change 'just because' - there is always a cause, either natural or not.
So... if not humans then what (that unanswered question is now well over 5 years old on these XNC board's)?!

The same things that are causing global warming on other planets in this solar system.


... which is....?

And where exactly are you referring to?
Still Mars? lol.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 07:01:56 pm
The The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is funded by Exxon Mobile via The International Climate Science Coalition.

A Greenpeace claim isn't that credible you know. Especially since the only proof they've got is that they were paid to attend a conference that was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. It doesn't demonstrate before or afterwards funding.

Besides which NIWA is funded by the government. An organisation whose main aim in life is tax. Guess what balmy decision the warmist have come up with as the miraculous solution? Oh, right, an air tax.


It's not a GreenPeace Claim (or rather - that wasn't what I was referring to anyway).
The International Climate Science Coalition is in bed with The Heartland Institute - and The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is a child of The International Climate Science Coalition. It is well known that The Heartland Institute is largely funded directly by Exxon Mobile and other like minded large money making machines.

Besides which NIWA is funded by the government. An organisation whose main aim in life is tax.

Lol.. a fair enough comparison that!
(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/afro.gif)


Of course - it is only recently that NIWA has had any opinion on this matter at all.
The same for NASA and NOAA.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 07:21:34 pm
So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Who in the world said anything about Real Climate?!
Sure wasn't me!

Realclimate is where the data was first uploaded (though Gavin did delete it). You're the one going on about some Oil Baron. The point is, your point is irrelevant.


... which is....?

And where exactly are you referring to?
Still Mars? lol.



Plenty of other planets are warming Dazza. Not just Mars.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 06, 2009, 07:25:36 pm
Of course - it is only recently that NIWA has had any opinion on this matter at all.
The same for NASA and NOAA.

ROTFLMAO!

Salinger has been a warmist for years. I'm trying to cast my mind back to the lecture that was presented at the University of Otago back in 1988. It boiled done to this topic being a source of revenue research funding. I'm pretty sure it was Salinger presenting.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 07:42:12 pm
So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Who in the world said anything about Real Climate?!
Sure wasn't me!

Realclimate is where the data was first uploaded (though Gavin did delete it). You're the one going on about some Oil Baron. The point is, your point is irrelevant.

Yer - the Oil Baron who first (FIRST) released the hacked emails - the guy  either did it himself or commissioned (cant remember) a 3rd party to actually hacked into the servers.
I'll find it.

All of this has nothing what so ever to do with Real Climate thou - other than the fact that they were bombed with it, as were many other sites at the time.

... which is....?

And where exactly are you referring to?
Still Mars? lol.

Plenty of other planets are warming Dazza. Not just Mars.

Such as ?
Pluto?

Please... don't...  it just gets sillier and sillier!

Come on - blame the sun... I dear you!
 ;D



Deep Solar Minimum

April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

More >> (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 07:44:22 pm
Wasn't talking about Salinger - I thought we were talking about NIWA.
It wasn't that long ago (around 4 years perhaps - maybe longer... but not my much) that NIWA had no opinion on the subject what-so-ever.
Just the same as NASA and NOAA.


Cant remember just what the relevance of that point was thou... I think it was something you brought up....

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 06, 2009, 11:25:50 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d5_1260036692
Al Gore Buys A 100FT Housboat Tto Save The Climate
 
 

Former Vice President Al Gore, the Nobel-winning self-proclaimed global prophet of green, has made a lot of money from the so-called “crisis” of global warming. He has profited from best-selling books that tout the looming climatic catastrophe, won an Academy Award for a movie about his slideshow presentation that focuses on his “sky is falling” message about a world on the brink of environmental disaster.

His business interests have been focused on the profit side of the equation when it comes to “global warming,” creating a “carbon credits” program that has put millions of dollars into the pockets of Gore and his environmental cronies. There are also financial interests benefiting from the sudden shift to the ‘environmentally friendly’ light bulbs that he has trumpeted so loudly: his friends at General Electric stand to make big money from the congressionally mandated demand for their new light bulbs.

There is no question that the alarmism and doomsday scenarios spread by Al Gore have been very, very beneficial to him personally and professionally.

But the question persists as to whether he actually buys into what he is selling. His own behavior clearly indicates that he doesn’t believe we are at a “tipping point” of worldwide environmental destruction. While he preaches that the rest of us must dramatically change our lifestyles and lower our standards of living to “save the planet” he lives by another set of rules himself.

It happens in the air, where he jets about in private planes that consume massive amounts of energy to spread his message of “conservation.”

His hypocrisy is revealed on land, where he travels in fleets of limos and SUVs to deliver speeches about the dire consequences of ignoring “man-made global warming” — and leaves the cars running throughout his entire speech in order to ensure that they will be nice and cool when he exits the building and returns to his gas-guzzling vehicles.

His supposedly “green” mansion consumes electricity that dwarfs the consumption of the typical family home.

And now, in order to complete his hypocrisy trifecta, Al Gore may now be extending his excessive consumption to the water as well. In an amazing display of conspicuous consumption, even for Al Gore, his new 100-foot houseboat that docks at the Hurricane Marina in Smithville, Tennessee is creating a critical buzz among many of his former congressional constituents. Dubbed “Bio-Solar One,” which may reflect some latent Air Force One envy, Gore has proudly strutted the small-town dock claiming that his monstrous houseboat is environmentally friendly. (Only Al Gore would name his boat B.S. One and not get the joke. Or perhaps the joke is on us?)

The boat is a custom-built Fantasy Yacht built specifically for Gore by Bill Austin of Sparta, Tennessee.

According to Austin, the engines are bio-diesel fueled and Gore can expect to use about two gallons an hour to cruise Center Hill Lake. With a 500 gallon capacity Austin says Gore won’t need a refill for “two or three years” though he admits having “no clue” about where Gore could get bio-diesel at the lake. The Hurricane Marina dock doesn’t sell it.

This boat is going to be the Toyota Prius of the houseboat business,” Austin proclaims. “It is the most eco-friendly houseboat anywhere in the country and is going to revolutionize the houseboat industry. People are increasingly worried about high gas prices and this is the answer.” Austin claims that the “Bio-Solar One” will create 40-50% less carbon emission and use half the fuel of other similar houseboats. “Gore will consume a lot more fuel driving to and from the lake than he will ever use cruising on this houseboat,” Austin asserts.

The solar panels have not yet been installed but are expected to arrive from Reno, Nevada “any day” and will be in working order “soon,” says Austin.

When the solar panels are installed the Gore boat could power itself and “most of the dock” according to Austin. In the meantime, however, Gore is plugged into the dock as his primary power source.
Austin says he has several other potential customers interested in following Gore’s lead. Austin professes reluctance to talk about “other folks business” but notes that a houseboat similar to Gore’s will cost between $500,000 to a million dollars. Austin believes that Gore’s “Bio-Solar One” will set the stage for a lot of sales. Land, air and now the sea. Will space will be the final frontier?

Let’s not forget: Gore made similar claims about the environmental benefits of the solar panels and other “green” additions he made to his 10,000 square foot home in Belle Meade, a cushy neighborhood in Nashville, Tennessee. The environmental savings promised from his “investments” failed to produce the results that he touted. In fact, his “energy efficient” renovations to his home actually INCREASED his electrical consumption by 10% rather than producing the promised reductions. Ultimately, Gore’s water-based excursions on his giant houseboat may prove more environmentally friendly than his fleet of limos, his private jets or his mansion. Perhaps the B.S. One will never live up to its nickname, but the jet ski on the boat is clearly powered by something other than solar or bio-diesel.

Maybe Al is buying carbon credits from himself to offset that particular energy usage.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=098_1218128385


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 06, 2009, 11:33:30 pm
(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=331_1178832113


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 06, 2009, 11:56:42 pm
PMSL....  like Gore couldn't afford a boat BEFORE he got involved?

Hey sexy - sometimes it pays to read a bit more as well.
I note the tub runs on Bio-fuel, only needs refueling once a year (house boats hardly ever move) and is decked out with solar panels enough to supply all the electricity it needs...

What a STUPID name though - Bio-Solar-One! B.S.1?! lol...


In saying that thou - it is another example of human waste.
It's not like he NEEDS it...



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 01:16:52 am

Al Gore's Own Inconvenient Truth
Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: February 26, 2007 - 8:01 PM
Al Gore's mansion uses more than twice the electricity in one month than the average household does in an entire year. From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Yikes! Gore is an energy glutton. Now compare this to President Bush's comparatively modest home in Crawford, Texas, which is a model of environmental friendliness:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/02/26/al-gores-own-inconvenient-trut.php


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 07, 2009, 07:10:30 am

Yer - the Oil Baron who first (FIRST) released the hacked emails - the guy  either did it himself or commissioned (cant remember) a 3rd party to actually hacked into the servers.
I'll find it.

All of this has nothing what so ever to do with Real Climate thou - other than the fact that they were bombed with it, as were many other sites at the time.

Not according to Gavin Smidt. Realclimate got it first (and then deleted it), so your claim that it was commissioned by some Oil Baron is on thin ice.



Such as ?
Pluto?


There are more planets (and objects) than Mars or Pluto that are experiencing global warming.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 07, 2009, 07:24:32 am
Wasn't talking about Salinger - I thought we were talking about NIWA.

Same thing until recently. I think you'll find NIWA (via Salinger) has been pushing the man-is-bad creed for some time. In fact those leaked emails from East Anglia have correspondence with one Jim Salinger in his NIWA days. Those emails are proving to be more and more useful all the time.

As robman pointed out in another thread, global warming is the new religion. Back in the days when Roman Catholicism ruled (Western) Europe science religion was too complicated for the average person to work out, so they had specialist scientists monks to work it all out. They're findings were then used to establish the order they so desired because they used the creed of driving cars original sin and we're doomed unless we pay Emission Trading Schemes tithes to make global warming Satan go away.

Eventually one scientist monk rebelled and released the data bible into the common language so that ordinary people could understand.

Using fear is an age old tactic.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 05:03:55 pm
The Global warming idea its like a big game of poker all the heavy weights have put all their chips into the pot and gone all in.But whats really going on ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5mRYdZCBxY&feature=rec-fresh+div-r-1-HM

Global warming hysteria is new eugenics
Posted: August 11, 2007
1:00 am Eastern

By Henry Lamb
© 2009



The BP oil company ads on television are, or should be, enough to make you never buy another drop of British-Petroleum gasoline. The farmer-type guy who stands there and talks about how wonderful it would be if you could grow a crop, convert it into fuel and put it in your tractor to plant next year's crops is disingenuous, deceptive and disgusting. So is the ad that shows a kid, holding what looks like a sugar beet, talking about making fuel out of the thing he's holding and replanting it year after year. BP airs these ads to suggest that it is working toward converting to this new "natural" fuel.

What a joke. If every acre of productive land in America were converted to growing corn, sugar beets or other so-called renewable fuel, it would not come close to meeting the demand. Moreover, it would essentially destroy the environment, since these crops are heavy feeders of both water and soil nutrients. It would force the importation of food from other countries, and the fuel product would cost more per gallon and deliver less energy than petroleum products.

This is the future BP's ads suggest, but the company is not alone in its deception. Guru-in-chief Al Gore's relentless tent-revival evangelism calls environmental sinners to the global warming altar to confess their carbon dioxide emissions and to seek baptism in ethanol and salvation in a Toyota Prius.
Gore's global warming religion is reminiscent of the eugenics phenomenon in the 20th century. The elite of the scientific community, and well-to-do of the social set, embraced eugenics as the enlightened way to the perfect society. Skeptics were ridiculed, denounced and pointed to as the kind of scum that would be eliminated if eugenics became the official policy of government.

Like the eugenics fiasco, the global warming debate left the scientific arena and has become a matter of belief, or social acceptance. The in-crowd "believes" that people are causing global warming and that the only way to stop it is to have government force people to stop using fossil fuel. The in-crowd is no longer interested in science. Their only interest seems to be to discredit the people they call "deniers" and to pressure government into adopting the policies that will ultimately prevent the use of fossil fuels.

Gore's army of in-crowd zealots are in precisely the same position the pro-eugenics in-crowd occupied when they convinced Hitler's government to implement the policies necessary to advance their point of view.

Should Gore's army prevail, the consequences will take longer than Hitler's violence but the end result will be quite similar: The destruction of a significant portion of society. At U.N. Climate Change meetings, Non-Government Organizations function much like the "local eugenics societies" in a prior century, lobby the policy makers to deny developing countries the use of fossil fuel and promote the use of solar panels and windmills. Consequently, thousands of people die each day, needlessly, because they do not have access to affordable energy to power water pumps, refrigerators, stoves, transportation and factories.

Just as the eugenics advocates had little or no concern for the people who did not measure up to their standards of genetic perfection, global warming advocates seem to have little or no concern for the people who are, or will be, denied the benefits of abundant, affordable energy. Note that the most verbose proponents of restrictive global warming policies are eager to tell everyone else to avoid the use of fossil fuels, and then they get on their private jets and return to their private mansions, powered by fossil fuels.

Al Gore used tons of fossil fuel to jet his entourage to Singapore, where he lambasted the "deniers" who have the audacity to disagree with the in-crowd – even though their disagreement is based on a mountain of scientific evidence.

Gore whines about what he calls the "big oil" industry spending $10 million per year advancing their anti-global warming views. But he fails to mention that government and foundations are spending several billion – billion with a "B" – each year to promote their global warming religion.

Like the eugenics fiasco, in the end the truth will prevail. Science will prevail, and the nonsense preached by guru-Gore will be rejected in the same way eugenics was rejected. Gore's global warming gospel will prove to be just as empty as was the global cooling gospel of the 1970s.

Danger to the current generation lies with the hundreds, if not thousands, of misguided policy makers who have fallen under the spell of Gore's charismatic religion. The folks who hold positions in state legislatures and in Congress can inflict major damage on the economy and the lifestyle of America, all the while thinking they are doing something good.

Hitler – and his eugenics advocates – were absolutely convinced that they were doing something good.

Introduced by scientists, advanced by politicians, popularized by the media, embraced as a moral necessity, resulted in severe consequences, rejected as harmful hogwash
Global warming: the new eugenics

 By Henry Lamb  Sunday, December 28, 2008

Eugenics pioneer, Francis Galton, defined eugenics as: “the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.”

Global warming can be defined as: “the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the environmental quality of future generations.”

The eugenics movement and the global warming movement are similar in many respects.  Both ideas were introduced by scientists, advanced by politicians, popularized by the media, embraced as a moral necessity, resulted in severe consequences, and eventually rejected as harmful hogwash.

Eugenics, thankfully, has run its course.  Global warming, however, is approaching its zenith, just before imposing severe consequences, and is, perhaps, still a generation away from being rejected as the hogwash it is.

Early in the last century, eugenics was called a science that justified public policies that promoted selective breeding among humans and attempted to force sterilization among the “lower classes” of people who did not fit the vision of popular eugenicists.  In this century, what is called science is used to justify public policies that promote prescribed life styles and attempts to penalize people whose choices do not fit the vision of popular global warming zealots.

 Scientists, politicians, preachers, and ordinary people who doubt the doctrine of global warming are outcasts, ridiculed, and worse.

The eugenics movement, carried to its logical conclusion by Hitler, killed millions of innocent people.  Global warming, when carried to its logical conclusion, will kill far more people than eugenics, and cause incomprehensible agony to people who desperately need affordable energy to survive and prosper.

The goal of the global warming movement is to end the use of fossil fuel.  Proponents of this movement claim that fossil fuel use is “killing God’s green earth,” as one popular TV ad declares.  They claim that the use of alternative energy will save the planet for future generations.
Eugenics proponents claimed that selective breeding would constantly improve society by eliminating the lower classes destined for perpetual poverty.  They were wrong.  Global warming proponents are also wrong in their claims.  The use of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide which certainly does not kill God’s green earth – it enhances it.  Carbon dioxide is to vegetation what oxygen is to people – essential to life.  It is an indisputable fact that vegetation growth and production is enhanced in direct proportion to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The idea that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is “killing God’s green earth,” is as preposterous as the idea that society would be better if it consisted only of blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans.

Were President-elect Obama taking office a hundred years ago, he would undoubtedly be filling his cabinet with eugenics experts.  This is a reasonable conclusion because he has obviously bought into the popular global warming movement, and is filling his cabinet with people who share his vision.

The more than 31,000 scientists who reject this vision are outcasts, and are ridiculed by the elite politicians who are caught up in the global warming movement.  More than 650 climate scientists, many of whom have been a part of the U.N. global warming studies, have publicly renounced the claims of the global warming movement.

These people too, are outcasts, ridiculed by the Obama global warming elite.

The tragedy is that the consequences of the proposed global warming policies will be as painful as the consequences of eugenics policies.  People will die.  Many more millions will be denied access to energy that could provide affordable life-saving refrigeration, heat, transportation, and energy for industry.

These consequences are unnecessary.  Fossil fuel energy is affordable and available for at least another century.  Laws that arbitrarily deny use of this available resource are as unconscionable as the laws that forced sterilization a hundred years ago.

Society was not made better by the eugenics movement; the planet will not be made better by the global warming movement.

From all the studies produced by billions of dollars of research in the last two decades, the only thing that has been learned for sure is that climate change is a natural function which the human race has not begun to comprehend.

Science has barely scratched the surface.  It is the height of arrogance to think that Congress can enact laws that will be obeyed by nature.  As it always has, the climate will change according to the dictates of the architect of the universe, not according to the dictates of Barack Obama, Al Gore, Carol Browner, the U.S. Congress, or even the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change.

The climate change movement is, indeed, quite similar to the eugenics movement.  In a generation or two, people will look back and wonder what on earth was wrong with this generation, to get caught up in such foolishness.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7188
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLM4wFapUnU
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d93_1207319140


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 05:23:19 pm
All this blar blar blar and now you've even got GB's of emails which supposedly support your message (I've given up asking for any science...  largely because I know just as well as you that there is none) - could you please AT LEAST supply the emails which point to doctored reports on which any policy is based?!

Quote
Those emails are proving to be more and more useful all the time.

How exactly?!

 ???


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 05:25:13 pm
The Reality of 'Climategate'

At a Danish climate summit this week, one subject will certainly be raised: The theft of thousands of private e-mails and files recently hacked from computers at East Anglia university, a leading climate research center. The e-mails, which were made public and appear to show scientific misconduct, have fueled a firestorm among those who believe that global warming is not chiefly driven by human influences.

The case is still unfolding, and East Anglia has launched an investigation "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."

On the surface, it seems that there was in fact misconduct of some sort. In some cases, words and phrases (such as "trick") were used out of their academic context to make them seem duplicitous. Other cases are more serious: Scientist Phil Jones was quoted as stating that he would attempt to keep papers whose conclusions argued against a connection between warming and human activity out of an important climate panel report. Researcher Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University was quoted as discussing a boycott of an academic journal because of its "troublesome editor."

These actions certainly seem improper, and in one case may have been illegal. The question is not whether at least some of the scientists quoted in the private e-mails exhibited poor judgment or even scientific misbehavior. The real question is whether that misconduct is relevant to the larger issue of whether there is solid evidence for global warming.

For all the furor and controversy, what has not been found among the decade's worth of stolen e-mails is revealing.

If the e-mails truly are the "smoking gun" that the critics of global warming claim them to be — revealing the tip of the melting iceberg of scientific fraud regarding climate change data — then it is puzzling that no one has yet identified the numerous faked studies.

For all the innuendo and accusations, the scientists' critics have yet to locate a single instance of fraudulent research exposed in the e-mails. Personal e-mails between climate scientists may be ill-advised and embarrassing, but by themselves do not provide hard evidence of scientific fraud.


The fact is that the evidence for climate change does not hinge upon data from the East Anglia University researchers whose e-mails were exposed. Data supporting the global warming hypothesis has been collected over decades from a wide variety of independent organizations around the world, including NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre in England, the Meteorological Office in Germany, and many others.

To use an analogy, it would be like if, during a worldwide eclipse of the sun, one observatory was accused of faking the telescopic images it showed visitors during the event. Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that the eclipse happened, nor that dozens of other observatories recorded the same thing. Many of the claims made by the so-called global warming skeptics have been raised and addressed (see, for example, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php).

None of this excuses the scientist's alleged behavior. They should not suppress nor delete data they disagree with. Scientists, like people in every other profession, sometimes act unprofessionally and maliciously. Fortunately the data they produce stands or falls on its own merits.

If the scientists' data is revealed to have been faked, they will undoubtedly be charged with scientific misconduct, their papers recalled, and their careers ruined. So far, however, the only crime known to have been committed is the original hacking of the university's private e-mails.


http://www.livescience.com/environment/091206-climategate-emails.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 05:30:40 pm
Not according to Gavin Smidt. Realclimate got it first (and then deleted it), so your claim that it was commissioned by some Oil Baron is on thin ice.

So you are now saying that Gavin 'Smidt' from GISS hacked the East Anglia University?!
Lol... has anyone let him know this?

There are more planets (and objects) than Mars or Pluto that are experiencing global warming.

Name them - and then let me know where you get your data from and what you think is causing it.
 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 05:46:09 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7M4Hqwdbg&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZBP-JYzQKg&feature=related
Shocking UN Document Divulges Climate Cult Brainwashing
Paul Joseph Watson on 01 December, 2009 10:33:55 | 101 times read

Kids coerced into performing global warming song as strategy document reveals plan to greenwash young minds by turning environmentalism into gaia religion -

PrisonPlanet - With the reverberations of climategate still echoing, it has now emerged that children are being greenwashed in public schools by being forced to sing climate cult ditties and hate their parents as part of a United Nations propaganda program aimed at capturing young minds, as the UN itself officially acknowledges the global warming mantra as a new religion.

A shocking new UN strategy document also reveals how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their program represents.

“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?,” asks the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser as she tells the story of how her daughter came home from school singing the words ” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . “.

“All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents. Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees,” writes Peyser.

That’s right, in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1991 resolution to make humanity the enemy in creating the contrived threat of environmental armageddon, children have been turned against their own parents in the service of a new gaia religion.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote in a report entitled “The First Global Revolution”.

“Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where “experts” from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat.,” says Peyser.

A newly uncovered document sheds some light on the genesis of how such brainwashing found its way into our schools.

A strategy paper for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog, reveals how the global elite in charge of the green takeover resolved that, “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a Fox News report.

This approach follows a similar tack to the new methods adopted by Al Gore, who in his recent presentations has delivered his message as a kind of religious sermon, acknowledging, “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

The UN planning paper outlines a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

Participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen, Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

A core element of the program includes, “an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth”.

“Civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns,” states the document.

The document discusses recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact.

The goals enshrined in the document, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Fox News’ George Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1989.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 07, 2009, 05:52:20 pm
Yawn. That pathetic "counter" is more "Move along, nothing to see here". The reality however is very different. Refusing FOI is a serious crime. Not even Gavin was/is capable of defending that (though he's trying with the other material). Emails discussing deleting that data and of course that raw data has now been "lost" (apparently) with only the adjusted CRU figures remaining (how convenient.) And so on and so forth.

I also never said Gavin hacked the East Anglian propaganda unit. You were the one claiming that some anonymous Oil Baron had commissioned this "thing" and you offered proof that his was the first place the upload happened. Which of course is bovine scatology as frothing at the mouth Gavin's site was earlier (unless he's this Oil Baron you're whining about.)

It doesn't surprise me that you're ignorant of the other objects in this solar system going through global warming.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 06:39:29 pm
One last time - where is the science?????

 ???


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 07:01:23 pm
Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2006. By: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization

The story of manmade global warming is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.

That said, climate change is real. The earth has been coming out of a 450-year cold era known as the “Little Ice Age” since it bottomed out in the late 1600s. Hundreds of studies have verified the existence of this cold period. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to erase the climate history of the last 1,000 years in its 2001 report. They replaced all the peer-reviewed studies of past climate with one that fit their needs. The now-discredited “hockey stick” graph showed virtually no significant change in temperature of the world over the last 1,000 years. Conveniently, the graph then showed a rapid and abrupt increase in global temperature during the last 100 years. This is, of course, due to our sin of burning fossil fuels and stoking the fires of global warming.

The only evidence that human activity is causing global warming comes from computer models. These models take what the people who develop them know about how the earth’s climate system works and attempt to predict the future. Computer models are not evidence. Evidence is something real, something concrete that is not subject to change. Computer models can be changed by their creator. In fact the creator of the model can make it say whatever the creator wants it to say by adjusting parameters. That is not evidence.

In 2007, a study showed the failings of computer model forecasts. The models showed that there exists a global warming “fingerprint” in the air. This fingerprint is a dramatic warming of the atmosphere, not on the ground, but 20,000 to 50,000 feet in the air above the tropics. The 2007 study revealed that real-world temperature observations by weather balloons over a 50-year period showed no global warming fingerprint at all, none. The computer models had grossly overestimated the warming over the tropics. Real world observations trump computer models. Despite this revelation the climate alarmists continued to trumpet the coming doom if we don’t change our sinful ways. To do otherwise would threaten government grants to colleges and universities, research facilities and government agencies. Large corporations are developing eco-friendly technologies to replace fossil fuels and brokerage houses are looking to cash in big time on the evolving carbon trading markets. The United Nations is looking to use climate treaties to wrestle control of carbon emissions from independent nations. This will elevate the United Nations and its leaders to the role of effectively ruling the world’s energy consumption through one world-government authority.

The greenhouse/global warming theory states that as more carbon dioxide is pumped into the air, the atmosphere’s ability to vent excess heat to space will diminish. This is the mantra of global warming alarmism. More carbon dioxide means more heat gets clogged up in the climate system and the earth gets warmer and warmer. From this we have conjured up all the various climate disasters, movies, concerts, fixes, and swindles, with their varied political and economic benefactors and victims.

Enter 2009 and a new study by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi from MIT that uses temperature data from satellites. As background we start with the predictions. The climate models say that as the oceans warmed by one degree Celsius from the 1980s into the 1990s, the amount of heat escaping to space would decrease. More heat would be trapped in the atmosphere, ultimately due to the burning of fossil fuels. The warming of the oceans was natural and part of the large multi-decadal temperature changes that have been known for years. Now if only we had a way to measure the amount of heat going out to space, then we could get some answers. We do, it’s called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE). It was in orbit above the earth measuring outgoing long wave radiation (heat) for 16 years from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. This is very significant. Now we had a tool, and real world data, that we could compare to the computer model predictions. It is the ultimate climate system umpire.

The results from the Lindzen and Choi study were stunning. The computer models, all 11 of them, predicted that as the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the amount of heat escaping to space should decrease by 3 watts per square meter. If this were true, then the theory of manmade global warming would have a strong footing. But the satellite data used by the Lindzen and Choi inflicted a bone crushing blow to this assumption. As the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the measurements showed that the amount of heat escaping to space increased by 4 watts per square meter from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. All the computer models were wrong. If the atmosphere is not trapping heat generated by warming oceans then there is no manmade global warming taking place.

The atmosphere compensated for the additional heat by opening the window a little more. The theory of global warming is lying on the canvas bloodied and dying. Alarmists will attempt to revive the carcass with even louder cries of impending doom and calls to repent. But this clamoring will fall on deaf ears. Science will ultimately prove the winner and the world will bury global warming in an icy grave where it belongs.
http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2665

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oVDC2IKPpg&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 07:39:18 pm
Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy.  The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science.  We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.

So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science.  Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit.  This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences.  In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines with relative ease and good understanding - like most folks read comic books.

As our own knowledge of "climate science" grew, so grew our doubts over the "settled science".  What we found was the science was far from "settled".. in fact it was barely underway.

It was for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with "all the world's scientists" apparently having no doubt.  Finally, in December 2007 we submitted an article to one of our local newspapers, the Addison Independent, thinking they would be delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue.  Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our submission (by the strangest coincidence), published yet another "pro-global-warming" feature written by an individual whom, to the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear.  Still, the individual had published a number of popular books on popular environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers.  We had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time.  Serious science doesn't matter if you have the press in your pocket.

In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the average reader most likely could not follow or even be interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by now that the global warming issue was "settled science".  And we confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a number of folks who work there personally.  They're all good folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn't go in their publication.  They also have a right to spin the news any direction they choose, because that's what freedom of the press is all about.  Seems everyone, both left and right, does it - and it's almost certain we will be accused of doing the same here.  And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it.  We humans aren't all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that's a blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food chain.

But by then we had been sharing our own independent research of the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising amount of agreement back in return. (We're in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle).  One local friend, in particular, kept pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a "debate" with the Popular Journalist who had usurped our original article.  This we politely declined, arguing that "debate" cannot prove or disprove science...science must stand on its own.

But then something unusual happened.  On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters.  The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.

 At last, we were not alone...

   

We decided to publish the results of our counter-exploration on the internet - but in a somewhat uniquely different fashion.  Knowing that most folks aren't geeks, and may have little understanding of science or math, we're going to attempt to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along.  Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale.  The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be able to follow, as well.  Smart folks learn faster than most.

What follows is a tale gleaned from many sources over what turned out to be an unreasonably long period of time.  We'll be first examining a "worst case" scenario, using very simple math at first, in order to arrive in a ballpark that will tell us if we need to go further and pull out long strings of complicated equations, which we don't want to have to resort to because we're writing for the average layman who is not a rocket scientist.  This is a valid scientific method despite its apparent simplicity, for if one can first determine that a person does not own a motorcycle, then you don't have to spend a lot of time calculating how likely he is to crash while riding it.  Reducing it to the simplest of terms for the average person to understand was a daunting task.  Below is an example of what "real" Climate Scientists have to deal with on a daily basis.  Is it any wonder that the most popular majors in college are liberal arts?


Snipped from an article entitled
Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
Department of Applied Mathematics
University of Washington, Seattle Washington

Let's take a short glance at the equation at the left, because you're never going to see anything like it again in this editorial.  To most of you, it is gobbly-gook, but to a physicist, it is part of a mathematical proof accompanying a particular study done on the sun's role in Global Warming.  What the authors are explaining is they have found that the total solar irradiance (TSI) has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978 and it varies on an 11-year cycle by about 0.07%.  So, from solar min to solar max, the TSI reaching the earth’s surface increases at a rate comparable to the radiative heating due to a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, and will probably add, during the next five to six years in the advancing phase of Solar Cycle 24, almost 0.2 °K to the globally-averaged temperature, thus doubling the amount of transient global warming expected from greenhouse warming alone.        Whew....
Don't fret - neither Al Gore nor any of the Popular Journalists can understand it either.

We'll try to reference most of the material, but if we miss a credit, or use a photograph someone didn't want to share with the world (OK, we wonder why the photo was on the web if that were the case) we'll quickly remove it with our apologies.  And let's freely admit up front that what we offer here is a dissenting opinion, and surely we have "cherry-picked" the articles of others which are also contrary to the widely held current beliefs.  A bit of this is original on our part, but most of it comes from others around the globe.  We have tried to present work from what we believe to be credible, thoroughly diligent scientists actively engaged in current research.  Let's get started:

We're reminded of an earlier story, which happened back in 1912. This was the amazing discovery of a skull and jawbone in which was quickly named the Piltdown Man and which all the world's archaeologists immediately accepted as a hitherto unknown form of early human. It appears no one bothered to examine it closely, assuming that other scientists had thoroughly investigated and vetted it. The hoax wasn't uncovered until 1953, when it was learned that the skull was that of a modern man and the jaw that of an orangutan. Seems no one had ever bothered to take a really close look at the artifact.

Well, folks, it does appear we have a new, 21st Century Piltdown Man, and this time we know his name.

 He's called "Anthropogenic Global Warming"

It's hard to nail down exactly when the sky started falling, but certainly the work of Michael Mann provided its first global exposure.  Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist ( one who attempts to interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring growth ), submitted a paper to Nature magazine in 1998 which, unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication.  In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous "hockey stick" chart, showing the earth's temperature having been relatively constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing upward at the dawn of the 20th century.  His interpretation was that man's production of CO2  in the modern age was obviously responsible for the sudden increase.  It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time.

You wanted some science its here

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 07:46:27 pm
That's it - I have better things to spend my time on.

What you guys don't realize is that my responses are mostly thought out and researched, I cross check pretty much everything I post and that consumes my time.
We have gone from talking/debating about this to posting absolute rubbish to being deliberately misleading, telling outright lies, right though to the point of defaming large US govt departments.

Take the above for example, Titled: Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2006. By: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization


Again - By: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center


A very quick search of NASA's website it becomes VERY clear that NASA has said no such thing - in fact, they are screaming just the apposite.

Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2006

Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1880 to 2006, the warmest ranked year on record.

And more can be found here (plus the images): http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003375/


The stench of desperation here is almost overwhelming!



So once again and in typical fashion the skeptics among us have shown without a doubt that there is no science what-so-ever in their claims, they have shown that they will deliberately try to mislead the lesser informed and will even scoop as low as to out-rightly lie in an attempt to get their point across. Their motives are self centered, self serving and they pay absolutely no regard at all to either all life on earth today, the younger human generation alive today or the generations following them. In other words: THEY DON'T CARE.

I find it very hard to believe that the masses will pay little heed to those among who only care is themselves when it's the entire planets population which needs saving. 

What's even funnier - what's REALLY cracking me up right now - the skeptics (having realized they actually have no science to stand on) lunched a attack against the global climatology community by hacking and stealing 10 YEARS of emails - they foolishly made a big noise about this but then to their absolute horror realized they hadn't found one signal thing - because there's nothing to be found! PMSL!!

That's a fine candidate for the "Oh Bugger!" thread I reckon.

 ;D


Sure is mildly entertaining...  but like I said, I have better things to do...


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 07:48:41 pm
That's not science sexy - that's someone opinion.

Hang on a sec and I'll show you science looks like...
 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 07, 2009, 07:57:20 pm

Wellington could be more like Venice by 2100

By EMILY WATT - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Saturday, 05 December 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/Wellington_2100.jpg)

SEA RISE SCENARIO: The computer graphic shows that low-lying parts of central Wellington are at risk of flooding if the sea level rises one metre.

If you want to go to the library, you'll get your feet wet, Wellington police will need boats to get to work, and parts of Customhouse Quay might get a bit soggy.

Wellington City Council has issued a graphic to show how rising sea levels would affect the capital.

"It's important to remember that, for areas such as the CBD, doing nothing is clearly not an option," councillor Ray Ahipene-Mercer said.

"Tools like this help us to assess a range of appropriate response options, and will also help people understand why it is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Local authorities should be preparing for a rise of up to one metre in sea levels by 2100, he said.

The council was shown the computer-generated graphic this week. It showed, if nothing was done to protect the city centre, low-lying parts were at risk of flooding. Sea level rise could also increase erosion and the effects of storm surge.

The council's strategy and policy committee considered this week the draft 2010 climate change action plan. It looked at cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for a rise in temperature and sea level.

Mr Ahipene-Mercer said Wellington had assets worth billions of dollars which could be affected, including roads, railway lines and the city centre.

The council planned to shift the focus to community emissions rather than just the actions of businesses and organisations.

It has set a target to cut community emissions by 3 per cent by June 2013 and committed $35 million towards plans with a climate change focus in its 2009-19 Long-Term Council Community Plan. Projects include walking and cycling plans, intensifying development in the city centre and retro-fitting homes with better insulation.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3129355/Wellington-could-be-more-like-Venice-by-2100 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3129355/Wellington-could-be-more-like-Venice-by-2100)



See the following interesting pages on the Wellington City Council website:

  • New Technology Helps City Plan for Climate Change (http://www.wellington.govt.nz/news/display-item.php?id=3780)

  • Climate Change — Introduction (http://www.wellington.govt.nz/services/environment/climate/climatechange.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 07, 2009, 07:57:34 pm

Region at risk from rising sea levels

By NAOMI ARNOLD - The Nelson Mail | 1:00PM - Monday, 07 December 2009

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/3134137s-07Dec09.jpg)

BEACH FRONT: Kaye McNabb, general manager for Nelson Airport, and Andy Booth, of Nelson
company SolarCity, with a red ribbon that signifies the predicted rise in sea levels over the
next 100 years and the impact it will have on Nelson Airport which is less than one metre
above the present sea level. — MARTIN DE RUYTER/The Nelson Mail.


Large parts of Motueka, central Nelson, the Wood and Tahunanui may be drowned by rising sea levels in 100 years, putting a billion dollars' worth of assets at risk, a new Cawthron Institute climate change report warns.

The report, commissioned by Nelson solar company SolarCity, also shows that Nelson Airport, the Boulder Bank, Trafalgar Park, Waimea Estuary and large parts of Farewell Spit will be at risk.

Cawthron Institute sustainable business group manager Jim Sinner said the estimates "could be considered a worst-case scenario".

"But it's in the likely range of facts if the world continues to experience rapid economic growth based on fossil fuel," he said.

The report was based on new scientific research from Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, including that of Victoria University's Tim Naish. It found sea levels were more likely to rise quicker, contrary to earlier projections.

SolarCity chief executive Andrew Booth said there had been little attention on how much climate change was going to cost communities like Nelson. He commissioned the report because he wanted to know what would happen to Nelson if carbon emissions were not drastically cut by 2020.

Mr Booth, whose business is as a provider in the Nelson City Council's solar-city scheme, hoped to encourage community action and business planning over climate change.

"I don't think any community wants to deal with the types of consequences that Cawthron Institute highlights," he said. "I think everyone would much prefer to pull together to try to reduce their own personal emissions now as much as they can to try to stop it happening."

The report said ratepayers would bear the cost of protecting or relocating community assets vulnerable to flooding. Mr Sinner said if there was a billion dollars at risk, "you don't just plan for the most likely scenarios; you also need to consider the plausible range of effects of what could happen".

However, Nelson MP and Environment Minister Nick Smith said putting the community to "huge expense" on the basis of one scientific report would be "unwise", although town planners needed to take long-term projections into account.

Dr Smith said a rise of 1.9m was significantly more than Niwa was advising the Government. Its prediction was between 0.5m and 0.8m. However, although there was uncertainty about the extent of sea levels rising, climate change still needed to be taken seriously.

"Nelson is responsible for only a fraction of global emissions ... but we still need to do our fair share," he said.

The report also showed a 1m sea-level rise would have water lapping the runways of Nelson Airport, while 1.9m would swamp them. Nelson Airport chief executive Kaye McNabb said that although the area had been flagged as an inundation area for a while, it was the first time she had seen such a "graphic" representation and the report was "sobering reading".

Nelson Chamber of Commerce chief executive Dot Kettle said the chamber welcomed the report, not least because it spelled out the consequences of climate change on the Nelson region very simply.

Ms Kettle urged all business to "take heed of emerging science". A business sustainability audit would help reduce energy costs as well as making a contribution on a bigger scale, she said.

Nelson Marlborough Seafood Cluster executive chairman Ron Heath said the report was based on extreme estimates.

Mr Heath, who is a former assistant vice-chancellor of sciences at Otago University, said the report was based on the Antarctic ice shelves melting, and there was conjecture over whether that would actually happen.

"The estimates are only as good as we understand the models themselves but we just don't understand all the processes. There is still a lot of work to be done."

Nelson city councillor Ian Barker said he thought the evidence to support the conclusions was not credible. There had been an effort in recent years to manipulate the record of temperature to show that there had been a rise in temperature when there had been none.

"So a pragmatic person like myself questions whether man-made emissions have had the effect that could lead to predictions like this. I think we should be more worried about how the world is going to be spending billions of dollars to try to fix something that is not a problem."

AT A GLANCE

Nelson in 100 years – impact of a 1.9m rise in sea level and a 2.5-degree rise in temperature:


  • More storms of greater intensity.

  • More and stronger gales.

  • Flooding from the Maitai, which already overflows its banks during the highest tides, will increase.

  • More flooding from high tides in other low-lying areas of the city.

  • More mosquitoes, blowflies, termites, jellyfish, wasps, which will find it easier to invade in warmer temperatures.

  • Estuaries and wetlands drowned.

  • More crop diseases such as fungi and botrytis.

  • 10 per cent increase in rainfall – but drought, flooding and erosion will worsen.

  • Impact on tourism, fishing, aquaculture, forestry and horticulture.

Source: Cawthron Report 1699: Effects of Climate Change on the Nelson-Tasman Region (http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/Cawthronreport.pdf).

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/3133937/Region-at-risk-from-rising-sea-levels (http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/3133937/Region-at-risk-from-rising-sea-levels)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 08:01:13 pm
[Climate data (raw)

  • GHCN v.2 (http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2) (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
  • USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 (http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/) and v.2 (http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/))
  • Antarctic  weather stations (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER)
  • European weather stations (ECA (http://eca.knmi.nl/))
  • Satellite feeds (AMSU (http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/), SORCE (http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE) (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train (http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd))
  • Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab (http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html))
  • World Glacier Monitoring Service (http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html)
  • Argo float data (http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm)
  •  International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (http://icoads.noaa.gov/) (Oceanic in situ observations)
  • AERONET (http://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/) Aerosol information
Climate data (processed)[

  • Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp), HadCRU (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/), NOAA NCDC (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html), JMA (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html))
  • Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, [url=http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html]RSS (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/)) 
  • Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI (http://ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/OI-daily-v2/))
  • Stratospheric temperature (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/)
  • Sea ice  (Cryosphere Today (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/), NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/), JAXA (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm), Bremen (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html), Arctic-Roos (http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic), DMI (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php))
  • Radiosondes (RAOBCORE (http://www.univie.ac.at/theoret-met/research/raobcore/), HadAT (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/),  U. Wyoming (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html), RATPAC (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ratpac/), IUK (http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/profiles/sherwood/radproj/index.html), Sterin (CDIAC) (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html), Angell (CDIAC) (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html) )
  • Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP (http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/onlineData.html), CERES-ERBE (http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/ceres/table_ceres.html))
  • Sea level  (U. Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu))
  • Aerosols  (AEROCOM (http://dataipsl.ipsl.jussieu.fr/AEROCOM/), GACP (http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/))
  • Greenhouse Gases (AGGI (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/) at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases (http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/)) 
  • AHVRR (http://www.usap-data.org/entry/NSF-ANT04-40414/2009-09-12_11-10-10/) data as used in Steig et al (2009)
  • Snow Cover (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php) (Rutgers)
  • GLIMS glacier database (http://glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/)
  • Ocean Heat Content (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) (NODC)
  • GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index (http://gosic.org/ios/MATRICES/ECV/ecv-matrix.htm)
Paleo-data

  • NOAA Paleoclimate (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html) 
  • Pangaea (http://www.pangaea.de/)
  • GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/index_eng.htm) (Denmark)
  • GISP2 (http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt) (note that the age model has been updated)
  • National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ngdcinfo/onlineaccess.html)

Paleo Reconstructions (including code)

  • Reconstructions index and data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html) (NOAA)
  • Mann et al (2008) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html) (also here (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/), Mann et al (2009) (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxySpatial09/))
  • Kaufmann et al (2009) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kaufman2009/kaufman2009.html) 
  • Wahl and Ammann (2006) (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/codes/) 
  • Mann et al (1998/1999) (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output

These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).

  • ERA40 (http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/do/get/era-40) (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
  • ERA-Interim (http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/do/get/era-interim)  (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
  • NCEP (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/reanalysis/reanalysis.shtml) (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2 (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/wesley/reanalysis2/)
  • MERRA (http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php) NASA GSFC
  • JRA-25 (http://jra.kishou.go.jp/)  (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
  • North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) (http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rreanl/)
Large-scale model (GCM) output

These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.

  • CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php)
  • GISS ModelE output (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/) (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
  • GFDL Model output (http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/)
Model codes (GCMs)

Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
  • GISS ModelE (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/)  (AR4 version (http://ftp://ftp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/modelE/), current snapshot (http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/))
  • NCAR CCSM (http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/)(Version 3.0 (http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/), CCM3 (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/ccm3/source.shtml) (older vintage))
  • EdGCM (http://edgcm.columbia.edu) Windows based version of an older GISS model.
  • Uni. Hamburg (http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Projekte.209.0.html?&L=3) (SAM (http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/SAM.6074.0.html?&L=3" rel=nofollow), PUMA (http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/PUMA.215.0.html?&L=3" rel=nofollow) and PLASIM (http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Planet-Simul.216.0.html?&L=3" rel=nofollow))
  • NEMO Ocean Model (http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/)
  • GFDL Models (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms)
  • MIT GCM (http://mitgcm.org/)
Model codes (other)

This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.

  • Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5846/1866d/DC1) 
  • ModTran (http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html) (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
  •   Various climate-related online models (http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/models.html) (David Archer)
  • Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND (http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/FUND.5679.0.html), FAIR (http://www.pbl.nl/en/themasites/fair/index.html), DICE (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/DICE2007.htm), RICE (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/RICEModelDiscussionasofSeptember30.htm))
  • CliMT (http://mathsci.ucd.ie/~rca/climt/) a Python-based software component toolkit
  • Pyclimate (http://www.pyclimate.org/) Python tools for climate analysis
  • CDAT (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/software-portal/cdat) Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)[/url]
  • RegEM (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/imputation) (Tapio Schneider) 
  • Time series analysis (MTM-SVD (http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/tools/MTM-SVD/), SSA-MTM toolkit (http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/ssa/), Mann and Lees (1996) (http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/tools/MTM-RED/))
Data Visualisation and Analysis

These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.

  • ClimateExplorer (http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?someone@somewhere) (KNMI)
  • Dapper (http://dapper.pmel.noaa.gov/dchart/) (PMEL, NOAA) 
  • Ingrid (http://ingrid.ldgo.columbia.edu/) (IRI/LDEO Climate data library) 
  • Giovanni (http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/) (GSFC)
  • Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)  (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/)
  • IPCC Data Visualisations (http://www.ipcc-data.org/maps/)
  • Regional IPCC model output  (http://www.pacificclimate.org/tools/select)
Master Repositories of Climate Data

Much bigger indexes of data sources:
  • Global Change Master Directory (GSFC) (http://gcmd.nasa.gov/)
  • PAGES data portal (http://pages-dataportal.unibe.ch/cgi-bin/WebObjects/dataportal)
  • NCDC (National Climate Data Center) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html)
  • IPCC Data (http://www.ipcc-data.org/maps/)
  • Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more (http://cdiac.ornl.gov)
  • CRU Data holdings (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/)
  • Hadley Centre Observational holdings (http://www.hadobs.org/)



Sorry - I would format it nicer - but then again that would be just wasting even more time.

Have fun!

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 08:18:52 pm
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I reckon Global warming is natural and not man made.
You may not agree but neither do a lot of scientist on this same subject  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 09:06:40 pm
Dazza your trying to blind me with science aye?  ;D

Oh thats right if most scientist can't agree on something that means they are already half blind.

Lucky for us we have those non experts like the stream media and politicians they are happy to come to our aid and save us all from our future doom and destruction.
They are saying us humans are to blame for it all,

Oh yeah they will need to change our whole way of life,maybe we will all need to ride bicycles and pay for climate change with our hard earned cash,
We will also need to give up our freedom to a UN world body that will be responsible for providing us with new laws that will control  every aspect of our life. Does that sound like a World government to you ?

This carbon tax bullshit idea seems like a crock full of shit to me  ;D

In our not too distant future thats when they find out global warming is not a threat, Will they return back to us the human rights,the ones we all gladly gave up to save the planet? and also will they give back all our money?
I don't think so


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 07, 2009, 09:51:11 pm
This carbon tax bullshit idea seems like a crock full of shit to me  ;D


Ignore it and watch consumers in other countries boycott NZ products, then when our exports collapse and our jobs disappear in vast numbers, you can try to claim you are right as you starve.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 07, 2009, 10:48:00 pm
Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.


He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment, eugenicist rhetoric which will be familiar to our readers and anyone who has watched Alex Jones’ Endgame documentary.
As the Watts Up With That blog highlights, “Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.”
Similar claims that the north pole will be “ice free” crop up almost every summer yet are routinely disproved.
Indeed, it was discovered that during August 2007 to August 2008, Arctic ice had in fact grown by around 30 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of Germany.
A new peer reviewed study has also discovered, “Total annual precipitation in Greenland ice sheet for 1958-2007 to be up to 24% and surface mass balance up to 63% higher than previously thought.”
As we reported last year, climate scientists allied with the UN IPCC were also caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, in another shocking example of mass public deception.
In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that the previous month had been the hottest October on record. It later emerged that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.
Watch a clip from the Sackur- Leipold interview below.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 10:58:24 pm
I - for one - am ignoring.

It's a waste of time even talking about this subject with some members in here. When their reasons become personal and they have no scientific support AT ALL to their view in what is solely a scientific arena - then it's just blar blar blar...


Lucky for us we have those non experts like the stream media and politicians they are happy to come to our aid and save us all from our future doom and destruction.

The above quote sums it up actually - the skeptics are more concerned about their personal well-being than the well-being of ALL life on planet earth and the human race as a whole.

IMO - that's incredibly selfish.

That's a big downer on you skeptic lot. Major browny point loss...

I'm ashamed I'm a member of the same race as yourself to be honest.
I find it absolutely and utterly inhumane.

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/40emthdown.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 10:59:13 pm
Could this thread be on it's way to beating roger?

 ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 07, 2009, 11:05:20 pm
Off to bed Sexy...  if you post something worth while then I might respond tomorrow.... if it's just blar blar blat thou - expect nothing in return.

 ;)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 08, 2009, 12:33:16 am
The globalist warming scum want to make us feel guilty for drinking our water using power, eating food, breathing, and even farting (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/07emangry.gif);D
They are saying humans are a parasite and a pox on the planet. And you GW religion people buy into all this boggy man scare mongering nature worshiping bullshit,And your even willing to pay your hard earned money to try and stop nature in it tracks;

Trying To Stop Nature In Its Tracks Good Luck With That baaa haha (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)

The earth is a big planet it will survive,The reason it will survive is because its been through much worse changes in its past history. If humans are all dead and gone tomorrow thats just too bad, but at least it might make the greens happy.(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/uglystupid2.gif)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 08, 2009, 12:39:45 am

Co2 Don't plants just thrive on that stuff (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/afro.gif)

Plants need more CO2, not less
By: H. Leighton Steward
OpEd Contributor
November 4, 2009
Congress and federal regulators are poised to make a misguided and reckless decision that will stifle our economy recovery and spur long-term damage to plant and animal life on earth.
 
In the coming months, the Environmental Protection Agency will hold hearings to justify the movement to brand carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. Congress will also consider cap-and-trade legislation that, if enacted, could also regulate CO2 as pollution.
 
Why is it such a catastrophic decision? Because there is not a single piece of evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, lower levels of carbon dioxide actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
 
For plants, CO2 is the greatest, naturally occurring air-borne fertilizer that exists. Even schoolchildren learn in elementary science class that plants need carbon dioxide to grow. During photosynthesis, plants use this CO2 fertilizer as their food and they “breathe out” oxygen into the air so humans can inhale it, and in turn exhale CO2. This mutually beneficial and reinforcing cycle is one of the most basic elements of life on earth.
 
An article appeared recently in the Environment and Energy Daily that claimed a “modeled” nitrogen deficiency will occur as CO2 rises. Well, CO2 has already risen over 37%, 105 parts per million, and where is the real world nitrogen deficiency?
 
Why are Earth’s forests lush if the added growth that has already occurred, due to big bursts of CO2, has depleted the nitrogen supply? The nitrogen supply of pristine ecosystems has been resupplied through natural processes for eons.
 
Computer models, manipulated to produce desired results, can generate catastrophic, front page, forecasts. We encourage our government’s scientists to step back from their models and observe what is and what has happened in the real world, as well as in actual plant experiments. Doesn’t anyone recognize the good news that is staring them in the face?
 
It simply defies imagination, let alone science, that the United Nations has now backed an arbitrary limit on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The chairman of the politically charged Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said he supports efforts to reduce carbon dioxide to 10% below current levels.
 
In the context of today’s political conversations, this recommendation may sound like an acceptable position to save the environment. But the scientific reality of such a step is quite the opposite. Lowering carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have catastrophic affects on our food supply.
 
Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide support plant life and helps plants thrive. If our food supply is reduced, the hunger crisis in many parts of the world will worsen. Not only would lowering CO2 levels be wrong, one can make the argument that even higher levels would be desirable. Greenhouse operators routinely increase CO2 to about three times the current level in earth’s atmosphere in order to encourage plant growth.
 
We know CO2 is vital for plants, but what about the argument that it is a dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect? Again, science does not support this argument. CO2 is not even close to being the most important of the greenhouse gases. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is more than 30 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2.
 
As further evidence, we find that as the post-war industrial boom began to put significant volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere, global temperatures did not rise. Since 1945, there have been about 40 years of cooling trend and only 20-plus years of warming.
While the warming is significant, it followed an unusually high period of solar activity.
 
Temperature did rise steeply in the 1920’s and in the 1930’s in the U.S. and 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century. The rate of warming then was also higher than in the 1980’s and 1990’s, even though CO2 levels were lower.
 
Many in the scientific community reject reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 parts per million, as Dr. Pachauri of the U.N. wishes. Thousands of peer-reviewed experiments have demonstrated CO2’ s ability to “green” the earth dramatically.
 
Nonetheless, Dr. Pachauri and those who prefer to debate science with politics are sticking to their old story and clinging to their inadequate climate models and their headline-grabbing catastrophic forces.
 
Do Americans want to see their government spend trillions of dollars removing CO2 that will not lower the Earth’s temperature but absolutely will risk harming ecologies, economies and mankind itself?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Plants-need-more-CO2-not-less-69158857.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 08, 2009, 07:23:01 am
One last time - where is the science?????

 ???

I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy. It's a pity I don't have the time to debate this topic like I used to, but Daz and I have thrashed this out several times over. It usually ends with Daz proclaiming that these scientists have no motivation to fudge the data. Except of course this time round (which is the pity) as we now know that Dr Phil Jones has received ₤13,700,000 for doing his research on this topic. We also now know that they have been adjusting the data to suit their hypothesis, e.g. "Used Mike's [Michael Mann] trick for hiding the decline."  Interestingly enough when Jones defended this recently he said he had to adjust the figures; apparently tree ring data before 1960 was accurate, but magically tree ring data is wrong post 1960.

For those that don't know Michael Mann is the person who fudged the data to get the "hockey stick" graph. A bit of work even other warmist have stepped away from (though there is the "Hockey team" who still support Mann and his special way of analysing data): a fantastic bit of work that dismisses the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in his thousand year myopic view of the past. Other warmists have been unable to repeat Mann's work, which should ring alarm bells.

Obviously Mann's standard of analyses is what the East Anglian CRU team uses to give us our doom and gloom prophecies from the IPCC (Jones is an important contributor to the IPCC message) given the leaked emails and the correspondence with him. It would be interesting to know if our own NIWA used Mann's standard for their own adjustments of the raw data. Especially since NIWA's adjusted figures paint an even greater level of warming of the 20th century than their warmist mates overseas.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 08, 2009, 12:03:53 pm

Ignore it and watch consumers in other countries boycott NZ products, then when our exports collapse and our jobs disappear in vast numbers, you can try to claim you are right as you starve.

Yes, and that would have to be the sole reason to buy into the scam; just like the story of the Emperor's new clothes people are too gutless to state the obvious because it would impinge on their livelihoods. Sad really.

Still, a gullible tax is the reasonable solution. All those that are gullible should pay the air tax, and those that aren't can keep our money.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 12:21:27 pm
I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy.

...you wouldn't worry about the science of your claims in what is solely a scientific matter?!
 ???

PMSL!!!!

That my friends - that one sentence alone sums up the skeptics perfectly.

(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 08, 2009, 01:02:41 pm
I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy.

...you wouldn't worry about the science of your claims in what is solely a scientific matter?!
 ???

PMSL!!!!

That my friends - that one sentence alone sums up the skeptics perfectly.

(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)



Note the quotes. I know it's hard for you to fathom Daz, but hope springs eternal.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Crusader on December 08, 2009, 02:11:20 pm
This is the biggest scam since the Y2K bug.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 08, 2009, 03:34:15 pm

(http://green-agenda.com/images/banner.gif)

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome

The First Global Revolution

The environmental movement has been described as the largest and most influential social phenomenon in modern history. From relative obscurity just a few decades ago it has spawned thousands of organisations and claims millions of committed activists. Reading the newspaper today it is hard to imagine a time when global warming, resource depletion, environmental catastrophes and 'saving the planet' were barely mentioned. They now rank among the top priorities on the social, political and economic global agenda.

Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good honest decent citizen. Multi-national companies compete fiercely to promote their environmental credentials and 'out-green' each other. The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions. But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?

While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.

I am not a conspiratorial person by nature and was faced with a dilemma when I first read their reports. But it's all there - in black and white. The CoR claims that "we are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse" and "our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth." In the end I came to the conclusion that there are two possibilities – either the CoR wrote all these reports and setup a vast network of supporting organisations just for fun or they actually believe what they have written and are working hard to fulfill their role as the self-appointed saviours of Gaia.

Based on my close observation of their actions, and watching the recommendations made by the CoR many years ago now being adopted as official UN and government policy – well, I have become personally convinced that they are deadly serious. On this website I try to use quotes and excerpts as much as possible and let the reader reach their own conclusions.

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.

Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN's Global Roll of Honor.

Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations 'Champion of the Earth'.

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway

Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

The Dalai Lama – The 'Spiritual Leader' of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Father Berry Thomas – Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.

David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist

Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the 'Global Commons' concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.

Other current influential members:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)

Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age 'Spiritual Activist'
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and 'evoluntionary economist'
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
and many more….

The concept of 'environmental sustainability' was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the next hundred years:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

“It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”

“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind's very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”

“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”

“Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society - one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

“Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”

So as you can see the even back in 1972 the Club considered modern industrial society to be completely unsustainable. They state that even if population was frozen at 1975 levels, and industrial activity at 1985 levels, then the earth’s ecosystems would still ultimately collapse. The CoR has not changed these views in the slightest, in fact, in the last three decades their warnings have become increasingly more urgent and alarmist. They call this imminent collapse the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique.’

The Limits to Growth is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations. It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 30 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained popularity and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups.

All meetings of the CoR are held ‘behind closed doors’ and no public records are kept. However the Club does produce many ‘discussion reports’ that can be found on its website. The United Nations contracts the Club of Rome to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which it uses in formulating its policies and programmes. A quick search for Club of Rome on the UNESCO publications site reveals 250 such documents. There are many other documents there authored by CoR members acting in other capacities. As many high ranking UN officials are actually CoR members, this is like a man asking himself for advice, and then agreeing with that advice. Not very objective! Various UN organisations also hold joint conferences with the CoR.

While checking the Club of Rome website this morning the first item in their ‘current news’ section refers to a briefing delivered by the CoR to G8 officials in preparation for the upcoming G8 meeting. The second item is a summary report from the Club of Romes ’strategy planning retreat’ with 150 senior UNESCO officials. The joint CoR/UNESCO communique states:

“We are at the end of an era – a turning point in history. We are approaching the threshold of runaway climate change. We underline the urgency of radical action to reduce emissions, by both immediate action and longer-term measures; to stress to political leaders the non-linear nature of the processes at work which will generate sudden change; and to assert that the overriding priority must be to avert the impending risk of catastrophic climate change.” - CoR/UNESCO communique

Twenty years after the Limits to Growth the CoR published another major report that became an instant best-seller. In The First Global Revolution the Club of Rome claimed that the time to act had run out. It was now or never. Delay in beginning corrective measures will increase the damage to the world ecological system and ultimately reduce the human population that will eventually be supportable. They also stated that democratic governments are far too short-sighted to deal with the ‘problematique’ and new forms of governance are urgently required.

In order not too violate any copyright protection I will not reproduce the text of the book on this site. However, it is permissible for me to quote a brief excerpt in the context of this wider discussion. The complete text (third ed.) can be read and searched online at Google Books. As you read the following quote (from page 75, first ed.), please remember the names of the leaders listed above. This is not some quirky little cult. This is the stated agenda of the leaders of the environmental movement:

“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.

It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives. But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness', 'new forms of governance' etc. They truly intend to bring about the world's First Global Revolution.

The Kosmos Journal provides perhaps the best insight into their worldview. This Journal was founded by the Club of Rome in partnership with with several of its sibling organizations. As described in my article, The Green Web, the CoR has established a network of supporting organizations, each focusing on a different aspect of their agenda. The Kosmos Journal contains many articles written by CoR members. The basic premise of their worldview is:

"Modern industrial civilisation is fast outstripping the Earth's natural regenerative and life-supporting capacity..."

"At current rates of resource depletion and environmental degradation a near complete collapse of ecological integrity will occur within the next 100 years..."

"Gaia, our Mother, who nutured humanity for countless millenia within her womb of evolution, is dying..."

“A small window of opportunity now exists to transform humanity into a sustainable global interdepedant society based on respect and reverence for Earth..."

"A radical change from the current trajectory is required, a complete reordering of global society..."

"Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy..."

"At this time a new enemy must be found, one either real or invented for the purpose..."

"Democracy has failed us, a new system of global governance, based on environmental imperatives, must be implemented quickly..."

Now that Obama is firmly ensconced in the White House the Club of Rome and its affiliates are swinging into high gear. The CoR recently unveiled a new 3-year programme entitled A New Path for World Development. The Club of Madrid has launched the Road to Copenhagen, a joint programme with the UN Environment Programme intended to facilitate a binding global climate change treaty in 2009. Perhaps most interesting is the State of Global Emergency declared by the Club of Budapest in October 2008. The declaration states that we only have four or five years to prevent a total collapse of the Earth's ecosystems. To quote from the document:

“If we continue on our present unsustainable path, by mid-century the Earth may become largely uninhabitable for human and most other forms of life. Such a total systems collapse could occur much sooner, however, due to runaway global warming or other ecocatastrophes, and/or by nuclear wars triggered by religious, ethnic or geopolitical conflicts or access to diminishing natural resources. The macro-trends driving these global threats and challenges have been apparent for decades and are now building toward a threshold of irreversibility. The scientific modeling of complex systems shows that when systems reach a state of critical instability, they either break down to their components or break through to a higher order of integral functioning. At these “points of no return” maintaining the status quo, or returning to a previous mode of organization and functioning, are not a feasible option.

The acceleration of critical trends and cross-impacts among them indicates that the ‘window of opportunity’ for pulling out of the present global crisis and breaking through to a more peaceful and sustainable world is likely to be no more than four to five years from the end of 2008. This is close in time to the Mayan 2012 prophecy for the end of the current world. The period around the end of 2012 is likely to be a turbulent one for this and other reasons. Predictions coming from the physical sciences foresee disturbances in the geomagnetic, electromagnetic and related fields that embed the planet causing significant damage to telecommunications and impacting many aspects of human activity and health. For the esoteric traditions the end of 2012 will be the end of the known world, although the more optimistic intepretations speak of a new world taking the place of the old.”

This may seem very strange – a group of prominent world leaders talking about ancient Mayan prophecies, but as I describe in my article, Gaia's Gurus, many leading global warming activists openly advocate earth-reverence and other New Age philosophies. Gaia, Global Warming, and Global Governance are intricately entwined, if one truly believes in Gaia, and that she is being fatally harmed by the current system, then a new system of global governance and control would appear to be the only answer. Global Warming provides the ideal 'enemy' to bring about this objective. It is easy for these global elitists to talk about sacrifice, wrenching transformation, population reduction and eliminating the use of fossil fuels but the implications are truely horrendous.

Even if you think this is all nonsense I would ask you to at least read these quotes and excerpts, and think about the implications of their agenda. Everyday I am amazed at how quickly things are changing. It is coming hard and fast. It's almost like reading a book and then watching the television adaptation, except that this adaptation is not a movie - it's on the evening news. As Al Gore said in the closing sentence of his statement after he won the Nobel Peace Prize ... "This is just the beginning."

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 06:59:42 pm
Blar blar blar....


Watch this - and give a shit, just for a moment......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPI04IPiwbg


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 07:10:56 pm
And for a splash of logic....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 08:19:34 pm
And I feel - sadly - the hope of the entire human race now lays in one mans hands....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYga2qRnY2w

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 08:52:39 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IaJsplm83c

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 08, 2009, 11:08:13 pm


Where’s the global warming?
Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is One World Government

SUNDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2009 12:14    NEWS FROM JERUSALEM


(http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/images/stories/nwo/global-warming-question.jpg)
A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Monkton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.

"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.

"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."

In an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monkton refuted claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.

"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.

"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."

Moncton is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States in the pursuit of international control of the U.S. economy under a one-world government to be administered by the U.N.

Monkton's lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can be accessed on the Internet.
As evidence mounts that the United States is headed toward a cooling cycle that may last decades, global alarmists within the Obama administration remain resolved to push cap-and-trade legislation through Congress on the increasingly dubious theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming.

In what has to be seen as increasingly bad news for global warming alarmists, scientific evidence is mounting that temperatures in the United States have cooled at a rate that would be projected to lower temperatures 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
(http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/images/stories/general/climateb.jpg)
Source. U.S. National Climate Data Center and www.c3headlines.com

Maybe Obama’s Science Czar is Right: Is a New Ice Age on the Horizon?

WND has reported White House science czar John Holdren's prediction that one billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

Even though Holdren's current position is that the U.S. needs to enact cap-and-trade to slow global warming, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

Holdren's prediction that one billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced by Malthusian population alarmist Ehrlich in his 1986 book entitled, "The Machinery of Nature."

Holdren based his prediction on a bizarre theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a resultant reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/new-world-order-news/60-nwo/1968-thatcher-adviser-copenhagen-goal-is-one-wor


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 11:18:57 pm
thejerusalemgiftshop.com ?!?!


PMSL!!

(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 11:23:44 pm
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2008&bmonth=11&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00)

 ;)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 08, 2009, 11:34:13 pm
Dazza do you think a one world government is a good idea ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQvhdCyhe4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_zzqvlslj4&annotation_id=annotation_681710&feature=iv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfl2b3cHP8A&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTOlnVG9wGc&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqIeZXoQaPo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmLJ2qogW2Q&NR=1

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 08, 2009, 11:54:23 pm
Dazza do you think a one world government is a good idea ;D

Abso-bloody-lutly!

That would suggest that humans have grown up and finally learnt to live together as one - it would end wars, famine, poor country/rich country... the whole lot!
Christ - the advantages are to numerous to list!


The day we all stand united and as one on this ball of rock will be a major turning point for the human race.

Sure - we will still have our problems and still have our differences - but it would be a major turning point and a giant leap in the maturing of the race.

Bring it on I say!!
(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/afro.gif)



In reality though - do I think we would ever get there?
Sadly no - climate change is going to stress the geopolitical climate so much we are much more likely to be blowing each other to bits in the next 50 odd years... India is already running out of water - 1.2 billion people. China is having the same problems - 1.4 billion. Just where are they all going to go and who's going to feed them - and how?

That's one thing I've always maintained - the real threat here isn't climate change, it's the human reaction to change which holds more potential for disaster.


If only we had the ability to learn from others mistakes...

 :-X


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 12:04:37 am
Lol...  I just looked up "Lord Christopher Monckton" in your you tube post above.... bloody funny!

The guy's a complete nut case!

In 1987 he had this to say about AIDS: "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."


And people listen to him?!
 ???




Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 02:33:46 am
Dazza
I too would also like to see an end to wars.I would like to see a sharing of the worlds wealth.

But do I trust a One World Government that would control every aspect of my life= Shit No
If I wanted that kind of life I would move to China

A One World Government would be a totalitarianism regime

A totalitarian regime is a government which controls every aspect of the life of the people. People living under a totalitarian regime generally also support it, sometimes almost cultishly, thanks to extensive propaganda missions which are designed to promote a positive view of the government. Citizens are also usually afraid to criticize the government, so they may be outspoken supporters to avoid closer scrutiny.




Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 02:43:38 am
Here's  some more science for Dazza  ;D

Richard S. Lindzen (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/05emsmilep.gif)

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.   His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS.   He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&feature=channel

www.youtube.com/        watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&feature=channel

Funny it wont play in here. I broke it up a bit you can reconstruct it and paste it in the top bar

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
August 18, 7:39 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009
If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees  C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
  Graph A
(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Global_Temp_Anomalies.jpg)

Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
    Graph B
(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Last_7_years.jpg)

As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
     Graph C
(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ERBE_1.jpg)
   
The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).
For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and  this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.
     Graph D
(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Ocean_Temps.jpg)

The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.
All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable.  The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute, Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists, Have it your way - Global warming is baloney, Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game, Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax, Taxing Carbon designed to fail
Updated to clarify sourcing.  All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on December 09, 2009, 07:12:17 am

A One World Government would be a totalitarianism regime


So long as the drum beat was to a socialist ditty Chicken Little would support it.

Anyway, while this may or may not cause an one world socialist totalitarianism utopia, I do agree with you regarding the issue of freedom. This scaremongering is enabling our politicians to tax the air. Once we allow our politicians to do this they will continue to find ways to tax the air more. Air was once free and soon it will not be.

Once you allow a politician to tax something, it doesn't go away. For example, Napoleon has long since been defeated. Europe has long since cleaned up the aftermath of Napoleon's "freedom" rampage. Yet we still pay income tax. Why?

Closer to home: almost immediately in her power the Clark's regime instituted a new "excise" on petrol (apparently that excise wasn't a tax) to pay for Auckland's motorways. They've finished that part of it. Has the excise been revoked?

In the same way we've allowed the pond scum to tax air, so get used to having yet another choker chain on. When they get all frantic when the cooling cycle continues on longer they're willing to admit (at the moment) don't ever expect the air taxes to be revoked. No, expect them to go up as they spin the story in yet another direction.

But that's all right. So long as we march to the socialist beat played by the Chicken Littles of this world everything will be fine. No doubt they'll come up with a new word for us rather than used the tainted ones of serfs or slaves. The Ministry of Truth will make sure of it.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 09:34:24 am
Dazza
I too would also like to see an end to wars.I would like to see a sharing of the worlds wealth.

But do I trust a One World Government that would control every aspect of my life= Shit No
If I wanted that kind of life I would move to China

A One World Government would be a totalitarianism regime

A totalitarian regime is a government which controls every aspect of the life of the people. People living under a totalitarian regime generally also support it, sometimes almost cultishly, thanks to extensive propaganda missions which are designed to promote a positive view of the government. Citizens are also usually afraid to criticize the government, so they may be outspoken supporters to avoid closer scrutiny.

To a point sexy I have to agree - there's always a risk factor.
However I think the picture you paint is a bit more bleaker than it would be in reality - local govt would likely remain fairly similar to what it is today.

One fact we must all accept thou is that as the world population continues to grow unchecked there will come moments were we all lose more and more freedoms, we can see this happening today. It stands to reason and is perfectly logical. I think that's one of the things I don't like about Auckland (or any city) to be honest - the freedoms are limited up here, and they are limited only because of the larger population. Everyone demands their human rights - yet what's a 'right' to some is a 'restriction' to others - and every 'right' has it's backside as we'll, much like in physics were every action has a reaction.

The only way to fight this 'freedom loss' is to stop having kids and apply population control.
Hardly something which could be blamed on any govt - the people just wont accept that. Yet.
They will in the future - they will have no choice, but just not yet. Maybe in 30-40 years time.

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 09:47:31 am
Here you go guys - here's the "mother load" of lists you've being seeking...

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 10:23:50 am
When I talk about sharing the worlds wealth i am meaning to take back some of the estimated 400 trillion net worth of the Rothschild's banking dynasty and also take some of the wealth back from their filthy rich friends ,Its those kind of people they have taken the whole world ransom,destroyed nations for greed and power.
by charging huge interest on loans to governments around the world,they have done this unabated for over 250 years.
These sort of people have no interest in feeding the worlds starving,and have no cares for people who lack clean drinking water,These people believe the masses of the great unwashed should be culled like pests

The people who need water and food
All that would be needed for the thirsty nations water supply problems is huge engineered salt water distillation plants,with huge irrigation pipelines this would need big money.Also they would need to replant tree's in the earths Barron regions,and sustainable farming projects,These 3 things alone would be good for the planet and the people.

Dazza I still believe the GW carbon tax is propaganda and alarmist bullshit.    

I would like you to watch these 2 videos then tell me if what they say is right or wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6ofn46xUY&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 10:52:00 am
I agree with some of the above - especially that around the mega rich and water management/sustainability...
If just 1/4 of the money spent killing up Iraqis was spent on projects like you mention above then things would be much better for many billions of people right around the world.

Carbon Tax is about the only fair way to force emissions down across the board - make things like fuel more expensive, then people will consider more wisely how they use it. I don't like it either - hell I wish it was free - but that's not reality. It will drive new advances in energy technologies, spur change in an industry which hasn't changed in principle since it's creation. That's a good thing in my books.

You show some concern about the people who need water/food now - their situation is now dire, it's those very same areas who are most suspectable.
Yet - they are also mostly the very same people who have contributed the least to creating the problem...



Will try to watch the above now...  if it's just dribble thou (and most are these days, paying no respect to observed changes or the science behind them), then I cant promise to sit though all of it. I will try though. But if they are science based and present new ideas, discoveries or theory's then they will certainly hold my attention.

 :)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 11:05:53 am
The lower one is rubbish - will watch the top one when I get a moment (it's almost an hour long...)

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 11:37:03 am
The lower one is rubbish - will watch the top one when I get a moment (it's almost an hour long...)

 :)

The top one is about the science.

I was thinking about some of those poor country's
Wouldn't mind betting lot of those dry places around the world were more than likely once covered in lush forests that were devastated and used up by past and long gone civilizations,maybe some was burnt to make room for farming,and some used for building and construction and heating,some exported to other country's and some used for weapons for war maybe thats why a lot of the rain forests are gone.History often has a bad habit of repeating itself.
     


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 02:30:02 pm
Giant 19km iceberg B17B heading for Western Australia

A GIANT iceberg bigger than Sydney harbour is drifting north from Antarctica towards Western Australia, scientists have revealed.

The iceberg, which is 19km long by 8km wide and known as B17B, was spotted by Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist Neal Young using satellite images taken by NASA and the European Space Agency.

Dr Young told The Courier-Mail the iceberg was about 1700km south-south-west of the West Australian coast and moving north with the ocean current and prevailing wind.

“B17B is a very significant one in that it has drifted so far north while still largely intact.

"It’s one of the biggest sighted at those latitudes, now 48.8º S and 107.5º E.

Dr Young said the iceberg was slowly breaking up, resulting in hundreds more smaller icebergs in the area.

B17B calved from the eastern end of the Ross Ice Shelf nearly 10 years ago.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/giant-19km-iceberg-b17b-heading-for-western-australia/story-e6frfku0-1225808551351


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 03:47:49 pm
Thats one big mother of an iceberg. why can't we cover it with a big thermal blanket.hook it up to a couple of big tug boats tow it and sell it ti the Arabs.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 03:50:42 pm
Any pictures
Does it have any polar bears on it  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 09, 2009, 04:52:20 pm
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007

The trouble with science
Science has revolutionized life since at least the age of exploration, through the industrial revolution, and to an unprecedented degree in the 20th century. Science generally, and physics in particular, got a vast boost in credibility and in government funding following the ability of physicists to develop weapons of unprecedented power in the Manhattan Project. Scientists and their engineering brethren also developed modern electronics, sent men and machines into the cosmos, and much else that would have seemed like miracles and prophecy in prior centuries. Sciences such as psychology and evolutionary theories of behavior have at least potentially revolutionaized our understanding of ourselves. Now we have a large number of self-styled "social sciences" that attempt to understand social behavior and societies through scientific methods. Instead of priests prophecying and invoking miraculous thunderbolts through mumbo-jumbo, our modern scientific priesthood helps create real technology and tells us what to think about social systems and political options by what seems to most people (and even to most scientists outside the particular specialty in question) equally mystical mumbo-jumbo.

This scientific elite is supposed to be all quite different from the priesthoods of old because it is supposed to adhere to scientific methods rather than superstition and dogma. The scientific method developed from several sources, but one that is particularly interesting is the law of evidence in medieval and Renaissance Continental Europe. In English law, issues of fact were (and are) determined by a jury and the law of evidence is all about the general biases of juries and thus what lawyers are and are not allowed to present as evidence to them -- the basic rule to overcome juror bias being that the relevance and integrity of the information must outweigh its potential to prejudice the jurors. But in the neo-Roman law that dominated the Continent from the Late Middle Ages to this day, juries were rare and judges determined issues of fact as well as law. Thus there developed in Continental law elaborate doctrines about how judges were supposed to weigh factual evidence.

Many Renaissance and Baroque era scientists, such as Galileo, Liebniz, and Pascal, had legal training and this Continental law of evidence was reflected in their methods. Most other early scientists had been exposed to law-derived doctrines simply by attending universities many of whose doctrines derived from the original universities which were essentially law schools. Soon, however, the scientific community was independently evolving its own cultural norms from this starting point. The ideal was to seek the truth. Experiment became the sine quo non of scientific credibility, along with mathmetical rigor and important applications in navigation, engineering, and medicine. Scientific funding came from a variety of sources; when governments funded scientists they were expected to solve important problems such as those raised by navigation of the seas, not merely to theorize. After the Englightenment governments started to separate themselves from the social dogmas of their day -- religions -- by making secularizing government and allowing freedom of religion.

Today a wide variety of important political issues are dominated by ideas from scienitific communities (or at least communities that style themselves as scientific): economists, climate scientists, and many others. But there is no separation of science from government. Like the state-sponsored religions of yore, most modern scientists derive both their education and their ongoing livelihood from government funding of the theories with which they are taught and on which they work.

The old state-sponsored religions, and the resulting ideas about politics and society, were funded by governments. Not surprisingly, as such governments took over religion it became sacreligious to criticize the importance of government generally and often specific governmental institutions in particular. Under the nationalizers of dogma such as Henry VIII, who nationalized the lands and priests of the Catholic Church in England, "render under Caeasar" became more important than "render under God." Despite the advantages of better funding these state-sponsored sects have been in decline ever since governments stopped otherwise suppressing their competitors. The state sponsored churches mostly taught uncritical worship of authority whereas their private competitors added much more spiritual value to their adherent's lives.

The simplest science is physics. In some sense all other sciences are just a variety of complex models of what happens when various kinds of complex physical systems interact. Physics itself is the simple core of science. Thus physics has been hailed as the "hardest" of the "hard sciences" -- sciences where evidence trumps bias and the truth always outs sooner or later, usually sooner, despite the biases of the individuals or institutions involved. Hard scientists will often admit that the use of the scientific method in "soft sciences" such as economics and other intersubjective areas can be problematic and subject to great bias. If any science can rise above self-serving biases and efficiently search for the truth, it should be physics.

But the recent history of physics casts some rather disturbing shadows on the integrity of even this hardest of sciences. Lee Smolin in The Trouble with Physics lays out a picture of an unprecedented group of geniuses, the string theorists, who have wasted the last twenty years, largely at taxpayer's expense, basically producing nothing except a vast number of highly obscure but, in certain senses, quite elegant theories. The number of possible string theories is so vast that string theory can, like "intelligent design," explain anything -- it is unfalsifiable. It is "not even wrong," to take Wolfgang Pauli's phrase about an earlier unfalsifiable theory of his era. String theory's main rivals over the last two decades are not much better. Theoretical physics for the last twenty years has mostly not been science at all, but rather has been a large group of geniuses working on their own cabalistic variety of sudoku puzzles at taxpayer expense in the name of science.

If this is the state of physics -- if even the hardest of sciences can be taken over by a thousand-strong cabal of geniuses who produce nothing of value except wonderful-sounding untestable theories whose main success has been in garnering their community more of our tax dollars -- what hope do we have that government-funded climate scientists, economists, and others purporting to do science in areas far more complex or subjective than physics are actually producing relatively unbiased truths? If we took a poll of theoretical physicists, they might well have (up until quite recently) reached a remarkable degree of "consensus" on the truth of string theory -- just as global warming scientists have reached a "consensus" on global warming and (it is implied) on the various bits of the speculative nonsense surrounding global warming. Does such consensus mean us lay people should automatically believe this consensus of experts? Or should we demand more? Shouldn't we rather, when deciding on which theories or predictions of climate science or economics to believe, act like a Continental judge or a common-law jury and demand to actually see the evidence and weigh it for ourselves? Shouldn't we demand to hear from the defense as well as from the prosecution? Experiment, multiple points of view, and critical analysis are, after all, the real scientific method -- as opposed to the ancient religious method of uncritically trusting a single hierarchy of experts.

Today's ideas about politics and society -- "scientific theories" if you agree with them, "dogmas" if you don't -- are funded by the very governmental entities that stand to benefit from increased government power. Just as it was taboo under Henry VIII to "deny" the authority of either Christ or the King, it has now become taboo in many of these modern intellectual communities to "deny" a variety of scientific theories that are now supposed to be "beyond debate," not just things like the basic idea of global warming caused at least in part by anthropogenic carbon dioxide(which this author finds sound and quite probable, but nevertheless believes should remain like all true scientific theories open to further inquiry and debate) but also the variety of extreme speculations that have grown up around it (regarding the severity of storms, projections of droughts, floods, etc., most of which are pseudoscientific nonsense).

I'm hardly the only person who recognizes this problem with science. Indeed, the opinion expressed above is quite mild compared to an increasing number of conservatives who are coming to reject big chunks of good science along with the bad -- not just the many florid speculations surrounding global warming, but global warming itself, evolution, and other products of the expert priesthood that threaten long-established (and often, ironically, highly evolved) beliefs. Conservatives, and more than a few libertarians, feel that modern science is becoming increasingly dominated by government funding and thus becoming dominated by the interests of government in gaining more dominance over our lives. With opposing ideas increasingly unable to access to this research and education funding themselves, the easiest way for those opposed to increasing state power to effectuate their beliefs is to reject the theories of the scientific communities that promote this power.

This, and not sheer cave-man irrationality, is why many conservatives are increasingly throwing out the baby with the bathwater and rejecting science generally. Both trends -- the increased government dominance over science and the increasing rejection of science generally by those who oppose increased government controls which scientists increasingly promote -- are disturbing and dangerous. Science, once a method of weighing evidence that called for the opinions of both prosecution and defense, is increangly being dominated by the prosecution.

We need a return to science with a diversity of funding and thus a diversity of biases. This is much more important to the health of science than the absolute level of funding of science. Reducing government funding of science would thus increase the quality of science -- by making the biases of scientific communities more balanced and thus more likely to cancel each other out, just as the biases of the defense generally cancel out the biases of the prosecution. Where government does fund science, it should demand strict compliance to the basic evidentiary principles of science, such as falsifiability. All government-funded theorists should be required to design experiments that can be conducted relatively inexpensively and in the near future, that would strongly tend to verify or falsify their proposed theories. More speculative theories -- such as those that rely on unobserved or worse, unobservable entities -- simply should not be funded by governments. There are a wide variety of private entities that are happy to fund such speculations; this variety of funding sources is more important to reducing bias the further one gets away from strictly controlled experiment. Any time government funds science we should ask, does the utility of the potential discoveries and the integrity of the scientific methods being used -- their ability to find the truth even in the face of high institutional bias -- outweigh the potential for the funding by one dominant source to prejudice the opinions of the fund recipients?

Science has benefited our lives in incalculable ways for many centuries. Increasingly we inform our political decisions with the discoveries and theories of science. As sciences ranging from climatology to economics play an increasing role modern politics, this task of building a wall of separation between government and science -- or at least not allowing states to sponsor particular scientific theories at the expense of others with comparable weights of evidence, and not allowing states to fund some biased speculations at the expense of others -- is one of our most important and urgent tasks. If we are to remain living in democracies we voters must learn once again to weigh some of the evidence for ourselves, even if this means we gain our understanding through the lossy communications of popularizers. It does not work to trust a theory, no matter how scientific it may sound, based on a "consensus" or "lack of debate" among experts who mostly derive their funding from a single biased source. We democratic jurors must demand to hear from the defense -- really from a variety of parties whose biases largely cancel each other out -- rather than from just the prosection. We must redesign our scientific institutions to minimize the biases that come from a single dominant source of funding if we are to achieve good solutions to our important problems -- solutions that are not dominated by the biases of that dominant entity.

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/03/trouble-with-science.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 09:24:43 pm
Aussies swelter through hottest six months on record

AUSTRALIA has recorded its hottest six months ever and is well on track to have the second hottest year since records began, the Bureau of Meteorology said.

The World Meteorological Organisation's annual climate statement released at Copenhagen found temperatures in 2009 reached 0.44C above the 1961-1990 annual average.

"The decade 2000-2009 is very likely to be the warmest on record," WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud told reporters at the Copenhagen climate summit late yesterday, Australian time.

Australia was singled out for its wild weather in 2009.

"Australia had the third-warmest year on record with three exceptional heatwaves," Mr Jarraud said.

The WMO report said the heatwaves happened in January/February, when the hot weather contributed to the disastrous Victorian bushfires, in August and again in November.

The presence of El Nino conditions underway in the Pacific saw near-record rises in sea surface temperatures and most parts of Australia experienced an exceptionally mild winter.

Maximum temperatures were also well above the national average, with 3.2C above normal, the largest ever recorded in any month.

Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology's national climate centre, said one of the biggest impacts in the last year had been the absence of cold, with a massive decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

"The last six months have been the warmest six months on record for Australia," Dr Jones said.

"We expect 2009 will be either the second warmest year on record for Australia or the third warmest."

He said the results were not surprising.

"Every decade's been getting warmer for the last 70 years.

"Clearly climate change hasn't stopped, global warming hasn't stopped."

The outlook for the summer is consistent, Dr Jones said, with warm daytime conditions in northeast Australia forecast to continue.

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussies-swelter-through-hottest-six-months-on-record/story-e6frfkvr-1225808646463


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 09, 2009, 09:29:17 pm
Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

http://www.realclimate.org/


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 10, 2009, 12:06:50 am
I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy.

...you wouldn't worry about the science of your claims in what is solely a scientific matter?!
 ???

PMSL!!!!

That my friends - that one sentence alone sums up the skeptics perfectly.

(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)





HULLLOOOOOO - are you ignorant or just plain stupid?  In light of the FIASCO thats surfaced re East Anglia (and others), IT'S THE "SCIENCE" THATS BLOODY WELL BEING QUESTIONED!!!  Its all very well posting this and that but dont lose sight of the fact that the spotlight is on bogus and illegal!


And Sexy - you are right that humans have been affected by climate and earth changes over history - port cities have become relegated where the sea has retreated a mile or more (Brugge is a good example of this), ancient cave art in areas that are now inhospitable parts of the planet are more evidence... I dont think humans will die out - more likely is a scenario where areas of the planet will not be able to support human life in increasing numbers.  People rave about droughts and water shortages in Australia when Australia is and has been a semi arid place for millions of years - and has had to support tens of millions of people only in VERY recent history. 

The contradiction I find in your posts that suggest an agenda of world population reduction is that end is unlikely to occur as quickly under a rich nation wealth redistribution program (under the guise of climate taxes or whatever) - or perhaps the wealth redistribution program is only intended to benefit a few while many will die off through lack of access to water, food etc?  The distribution of power in places like Asia and Africa has to be closely looked into - no way do I want any funding to go to despotic miscreants to load up on arms and munition to crush the citizens, to set up Swiss bank accounts and the like either to serve themselves or a select few in the West!  Thats what dazza needs to realize too.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 10, 2009, 08:28:31 am
HULLLOOOOOO - are you ignorant or just plain stupid?  In light of the FIASCO thats surfaced re East Anglia (and others), IT'S THE "SCIENCE" THATS BLOODY WELL BEING QUESTIONED!!!  Its all very well posting this and that but dont lose sight of the fact that the spotlight is on bogus and illegal!

Jezz - not you as well Benny...

You've been sucked into a ploy - the fact is (and it's easy to see if you bother looking) - they found nothing in any of the 10 years worth of private correspondence so they resorted to pulling words right out of context - hardly any sort of proof of some conspiracy is it? 

 ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 10, 2009, 08:30:52 am
People rave about droughts and water shortages in Australia when Australia is and has been a semi arid place for millions of years - and has had to support tens of millions of people only in VERY recent history. 

I don't Aussie has being mentioned once in this whole thread - until now...

 ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 11, 2009, 12:29:57 am
 ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 11, 2009, 03:12:33 am
People rave about droughts and water shortages in Australia when Australia is and has been a semi arid place for millions of years - and has had to support tens of millions of people only in VERY recent history. 

I don't Aussie has being mentioned once in this whole thread - until now...

 ::)



Post #135 - "Aussies swelter through hottest six months on record" - YOU POSTED IT.  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 12, 2009, 05:29:08 pm
Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science
An analysis by Peter Laut – November 2009

My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and
terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole
objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized,
apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data
.” - From my article in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 2003 (see link given below)

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 the nations of the world will discuss possible ways to slow down global climate change. The main goal will be to organize a coordinated reduction of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. With all nations contributing according to their ability.
But: Is global warming perhaps caused by the sun?

An important question concerns the physical cause of global warming. Is it primarily caused by changes in solar activity or by man-made greenhouse gasses? The answer has enormous consequences for the way mankind should react. If the dominant cause for global warming is solar activity, then there is no reason for mankind to waste resources in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And no reason to have the climate conference in Copenhagen. If, however, the dominant cause is man-made greenhouse gasses, then a reduction of emissions may be absolutely necessary in order to prevent a global climate catastrophe.

The overwhelming majority of scientists, represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has for many years collected and analyzed observational data and carried out model simulations in order to resolve this question and has arrived at the conclusion that the results overwhelmingly point at the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the cause. There are practically no observations which render it probable that solar influences play more than a minor role.
Now, in spite of the almost unanimous message from the world’s scientific community, there is a small group of scientists who try to promote the solar theory. They are supported by a massive network of journalists, film makers, TV producers, authors, politicians and grass roots. This group is centered around two Copenhagen climatologists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen.

Flawed science
I have followed the scientific work of these two researchers over many years. In the 1990’s I was scientific advisor to the Danish Energy Agency. It was my task to scrutinize the steady flux of climate related scientific literature and keep the Agency informed about developments which should be taken into account in shaping Danish energy and climate policies.

In 1991 Eigil Friis-Christensen together with Knud Lassen, another Danish researcher, published an article in the scientific journal Science which attracted worldwide attention. It seemed to document a close agreement between data representing solar activity (solar cycle lengths), and terrestrial temperatures. The agreement was displayed on a graph which showed a solar and a terrestrial curve closely intertwined. What made the graph a sensation, was the fact, that the steep rise in temperature from about 1970, the ‘global warming’, was closely matched by a corresponding steep rise of the solar curve. This was seen by many as proof that global warming was caused by the sun. The graph has been reproduced extensively all over the word, both in the mass media and in scientific literature, and has helped to create a large community of believers, who claim that the sun is causing the global warming.

Regrettably, it took some years before a careful analysis of the article revealed that the conspicuous steep rise of the solar curve actually had nothing to do with the behavior of the sun, but had been created (accidentally?) by a change of the mathematical procedure used to calculate the points creating the steep rise. I published this finding in 2003 in The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, but had already presented my critique in the year 2000 at a conference on “The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate”, arranged by the European Space Agency.
In the late 1990’s a series of articles seemed to provide additional credibility to the ‘solar theory’. In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984-90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years. However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws: 1) Most of the added data were totally irrelevant in the context of the article, but created the false impression that the close agreement with the solar curve did extend beyond the original seven years (see my paper for details). Actually, the authors’ procedure is like adding bananas to a statistic on apples and then claiming the statistic to be on apples alone. 2) However, the authors had also added relevant data. These were all displayed in the 1997-article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998-article. Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory, a disagreement that would become dramatic when more observational data became available in the following years (See my 2003-article for details).

Svensmark has never tried to defend himself properly, i.e., by a peer reviewed reply article, against these serious charges. Friis-Christensen once tried to defend himself against the criticism of the 1991-Science article. However, the apparent rebuttal in his reply-article was only achieved by introducing two simple arithmetic errors, which were well hidden in the article and quite difficult to spot. The two arithmetic errors artificially created an agreement of the new observational data with the values of the 1991-article. Applying correct arithmetic the support of the solar theory totally vanishes (See my 2003-article for details).

The strong human appeal of solar theory
The solar theory apparently has a strong emotional appeal to an important segment of the public. And, opposition to it can lead to political reprisal with severe consequences for the funding of individual researchers and research institutes.

Several books and many TV ‘documentaries’ have appeared, promoting the solar theory. To mention a few: The TV documentary ‘The Great Global Swindle’ by Martin Durkin was shown on UK’s Channel 4 in March 2007. And a whole series of films by Lars Mortensen: “The Climate Conflict” from 2001, broadcast in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Portugal . “Doomsday Called off” from 2004, broadcast in Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Canada, Norway, Middle East and Asia. And “The Cloud Mystery” from 2008, broadcast in Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, France, Belgium, Australia, Poland, Greece, Italy, Israel and France. Some readers may find this list long and boring. Others may find it scary. It can be seen as a threat to the authority of sound science, originating from a mixture of popular wishful thinking, populist deception and industrial interests. Many of these films are created with great artistic talent, and have – apparently – convinced millions of ordinary people and many political decision makers all over the world that global warming is caused by solar activity and not by human made greenhouse gasses. How can the world’s politicians make responsible decisions, when their voters are seduced to believe in fairytales?

The myth – describing a small group of ingenious scientists, who have arrived at the ultimate truth about climate, who have identified the sun as the mighty culprit, and who are shunned by a stubborn, envious establishment of old, narrow-minded professors – has a strong appeal to many. It is good stuff for an artistic film maker. It can be molded into a moving story – mixing images of lonely heroes, brave, fighting underdogs, with beautiful pictures of the sun and clouds. And it turns out that neither the filmmaker nor the audience can be influenced by being told that the solemnly presented graphs on the screen are rigged.

Who is to blame?
Who is to blame for the development of this irrational cult of a postulated solar influence upon the Earth’s climate?
The IPCC is not without responsibility for providing the free ride for solar crusaders. Because the IPCC has never made it clear, that the problem with the widely circulated, infamous figures of 1991 and 1998 -which probably have been the most important persuaders -is not a question of scientific uncertainty and differing opinion, but a case of manipulated data that have nothing to do with reality. Instead of merely describing Svensmark’s contributions as ‘controversial’, some stronger words from the IPCC would have been appropriate. In a language that could be understood by ordinary citizens.

There are many other examples of the failure of the scientific community to prevent misinformation.
On the website of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), you can still find the original proposal for the so-called CLOUD project from 2000, an experiment designed to investigate a possible link between cosmic rays and clouds. An excellent scientific project. The front page of this proposal displays the names of 56 scientists -many of them well-known and well-regarded -from 9 countries. However, in the chapter describing the scientific motivation – which should contain the scientific essence of the proposal -the false conclusions of the manipulated articles from 1991 and 1998 are described in detail, illustrated by the misleading graphs. Without any cautioning of the unsuspicious reader! Did any of these scientists actually read the chapter on the scientific motivation for this multimillion Euro project? But, no matter what the scientists knew or did not know when this proposal was posted, for the ordinary visitor in year 2009 this inclusion must appear as a guarantee that the articles represent good science.

Another example of a certain irresponsibility of the scientific community: The Danish Meteorological Institute for many years proudly displayed the misleading 1991-graph on its website, as an example of its pioneering achievements in climate research. The motivation for this misinformation may have been a belief that the solar credentials would generate political goodwill and attract funding.

A question of trust
So, it must be recognized that not all research institutions have accepted proper responsibility to maintain the trust which the general public traditionally places in them. In the modern world, many scientific results are extremely difficult to verify independently. They may be produced by a group of several researchers working for months or even years with vast amounts of data, which have to be calibrated employing especially tailored computer programs. Often it is practically impossible for an outsider to verify the conclusions. That applies also to the referees, who have to decide on the publication of the work. So, trust is in the short run often all we have to judge the authenticity of claimed new developments. Trust in fellow scientists and trust in research institutions. And, at the Copenhagen conference on global climate the decision makers of the world, must be able to trust the scientific basis which is presented to them. They must be able to rely on it when building a strategy to fend off catastrophic climate developments. So, the scientific community should be careful not to squander this trust.
A few weeks ago, in Swedish Public Television, two of the world’s leading climatologists were asked about Svensmark and his solar theory. Now, scientific dispute has a long tradition for expressing disagreement in polite and neutral terms. Only in rare cases blunt words surface, as when Jon Egill Kristjánsson, professor at The University of Oslo concluded : “It should not be taken seriously – to put it plain and simple.” And Mike Lockwood of The Royal Society of London, who to begin with – years ago -supported the theory, said “.. the change in the magnetic field since 1985 – it’s moved in the wrong direction”, which means that according to Svensmark’s ideas we should have experienced a global cooling since then. And he added: “I would love it to be right! I would absolutely love it to be right! Unfortunately, wanting something doesn’t change the scientific reality. One can’t use spin or rhetoric or anything to change the scientific reality.”

My 2003-article can be downloaded from the link: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

Peter Laut Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark Former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency Storskovvej 10, 8721 Daugaard, Denmark. Phone: +45 7589 6750. E-mail: peter@laut.dk




Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 12, 2009, 07:06:02 pm
Peer-Reviewed Study: Global Warming is Natural, Shows No Human Influence  

December 10, 2007

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (�fingerprints�) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is �unstoppable� and More.. cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651].  The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: �The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.�

Co-author John Christy said: �Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.�

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: �The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.  The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth�s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth�s surface and thus the climate.� Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change.

We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. � but very costly.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 12, 2009, 07:17:24 pm
Link?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 12, 2009, 09:16:34 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1197385712

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651].

Thats for my previous post.



Any links to your oil baron computer hacker come to hand?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 12, 2009, 09:24:34 pm
Cheers.
:-)

Re the oil dude - nar - I couldn't be assed hunting for it. I cant even remember which thread it was in.

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 12, 2009, 09:27:28 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1197385712

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651].

Thats for my previous post.


Why is everything related to that 'story' on that site related to other stories about Tax?
And what's up with all the hard core porn videos?

You don't seriously buy into sources like that do you?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 12, 2009, 09:35:24 pm
Got it...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


Talk about talking SHIT... gods.


First of all - the man who hacked this database is a known skeptic AND (more importantly) has known strong connections to the oil industry. He was for many years a CEO of one such company.

Quote
McIntyre worked for 30 years in the mineral business,[1] the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.[2] He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]
Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

The guy is a self vested pig who (like many others) only has his own interests at heart.



 ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on December 12, 2009, 09:50:54 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1197385712

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651].

Thats for my previous post.


Why is everything related to that 'story' on that site related to other stories about Tax?
And what's up with all the hard core porn videos?

You don't seriously buy into sources like that do you?




I think that "The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]" is credible enough.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: DazzaMc on December 12, 2009, 10:14:21 pm
Yer - but the first hurdle was the 2007 bit - and then there's the small problem of the Author working with/for the Heartland Institute (which is funded by Exxon - as are most skeptics).

 :)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 13, 2009, 04:40:35 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts6D4bhgLCQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccEmGdhyWG8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lhs7VR52Bg&feature=related
Antarctic Temperatures of the Past Two Centuries
 
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N40/EDIT.jsp
 
In order to assess the uniqueness of the current temperature regime in any part of the world, it is important - nay, necessary - to know its past temperature history; and to determine if a region's current temperature regime may validly be attributed to CO2-induced global warming, it is important that its temperature history stretch as far back in time as possible. Consequently, and as "the temporal variability of Antarctic climate is not well known, as continuous meteorological observations in the Antarctic began only in the late 1950s," according to Schneider et al. (2006), this group of seven researchers decided to utilize 200 years of sub-annually-resolved δ18O and δD records from precisely-dated ice cores obtained from Law Dome, Siple Station, Dronning Maud Land and two West Antarctic sites of the United States component of the International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition to create "a 200-year-long Antarctic temperature reconstruction (representing the main part of the continent) methodologically similar to temperature reconstructions covering other geographic regions."
The results of this significant undertaking, following application of a multi-decadal low-pass filter to the yearly data, are presented in the figure below, along with the similarly-treated data of the Southern Hemisphere instrumental temperature record, where the zero line represents the 1961-1990 climatological means of the two records. We present the figure for the purpose of discussing what Schneider et al. have to say about it, much of which we consider to be rather disingenuous.

(http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_02_files/image002.jpg)

Figure 1. Mean temperature histories of Antarctica (dark line) and the Southern Hemisphere (lighter line), adapted from the paper of Schneider et al. (2006).
In reference to the figure, its creators say "it is notable that the reconstructed Antarctic temperature record is in phase with the Southern Hemisphere mean instrumental record." This statement roughly describes the relationship between the two histories, but only until 1990, after which the Antarctic temperature history takes a "nosedive" and dramatically diverges from the Southern Hemisphere record.

The seven scientists also say the Antarctic temperature reconstruction "provides evidence for long-term Antarctic warming," and if all the data we had were those that stretch from 1840 to 1990, one might be inclined to believe them. However, when their "before and after" data are included, this statement is readily seen to be false. In fact, the entire record suggests the existence of a multi-decadal or centennial-scale cycling of climate, where Antarctic temperatures in the early 1800s were equally as warm as they were in the late-1930s/early-1940s, as well as in the late-1980s/early-1990s.

We additionally note that a number of other analyses of Antarctic instrumental surface and air temperature data also indicate the continent has recently experienced a net cooling, which likely began as early as the mid-1960s (Comiso, 2000; Doran et al., 2002; Thompson and Solomon, 2002). Furthermore, it is obvious from the figure we adapted from Schneider et al. that there has been a net cooling over the entire course of their Antarctic temperature reconstruction of nearly 0.3°C.

So what do Schneider et al.'s data really suggest? First of all, their data suggest there was nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about any Antarctic temperatures of any part of the 20th century. Second, their data demonstrate it was significantly colder in Antarctica near the end of the 20th century than it was in the early decades of the 19th century (when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm less than it is currently), while the data of others indicate it may be even colder there today. Finally, Schneider et al.'s data indicate there is something drastically wrong with the theory of anthropogenic-induced global warming, when a 100-ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration leads to a large decrease in air temperature in a part of the world (one of earth's two polar regions) where CO2-induced greenhouse warming is predicted to be most dramatic and most readily detected.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

References
Comiso, J.C. 2000. Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements. Journal of Climate 13: 1674-1696.

Doran, P.T., Priscu, J.C., Lyons, W.B., Walsh, J.E., Fountain, A.G., McKnight, D.M., Moorhead, D.L., Virginia, R.A., Wall, D.H., Clow, G.D., Fritsen, C.H., McKay, C.P. and Parsons, A.N. 2002. Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature advance online publication, 13 January 2002 (DOI 10.1038/nature710).

Schneider, D.P., Steig, E.J., van Ommen, T.D., Dixon, D.A., Mayewski, P.A., Jones, J.M. and Bitz, C.M. 2006. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL027057.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_02.html

Mysterious warm periods found in Antarctic history

20 November 2009, by Tamera Jones

Temperatures in Antarctica during the warm periods between ice ages, called interglacials, may have been higher than previously thought. The findings, reported in Nature today, could help researchers better understand more about how the climate can quickly change on the continent.


Antarctica
Until now, scientists thought maximum temperatures during interglacials were a little warmer than today's temperatures. But they now think they may have been up to 6ºC warmer.

'Our results suggest that Antarctica warmed rapidly in the past, but at the moment we don't know why,' says lead author, Dr Louise Sime from the British Antarctic Survey. 'It might be that at higher CO2 levels Antarctic temperatures are more sensitive to small variations, due to regional warming feedbacks.'

Climate has flipped
Scientists have known that the climate has flipped between ice ages and interglacials over the last few million years for some time. Fossils of animals that lived during warm or cool climates in deep-sea sediments and rocks reflect changing temperatures.

'Our results suggest that Antarctica warmed rapidly in the past, but at the moment we don't know why.'
Dr Louise Sime, British Antarctic Survey
Ice cores tell a similar story. Changes in the proportion of different types of atoms of the same chemical element, or isotope, in ancient ice give researchers detailed information about how temperatures varied.

When it's cold, water made with the heavy version, or isotope, of hydrogen - deuterium - falls out of the sky as snow sooner than water made with normal hydrogen, because it's heavier than normal water. Ice cores containing ancient ice record this, so they tell scientists what the temperature was thousands of years ago.

'Isotopes in ice cores are a very neat temperature proxy, because you're using fairly simple physics,' says Sime.

To figure out average changes in temperature each year, scientists have assumed that the way snowfall records annual temperatures each year hardly varies over East Antarctica.

But when Sime and scientists from the Open University and the University of Bristol analysed ice cores from three regions of East Antarctica containing 340,000-year-old ice, they found differences in the way snowfall records annual temperature.

Sime says, 'It's unlikely that all of the differences in ice cores depend on temperature. Instead there are also likely to be some changes in snowfall.'

'Further data on interglacial climates from Greenland would be invaluable to help understand what's going on,' she adds.

The world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 100,000-year time scales. These periods are called glacials and interglacials respectively. We're currently in an interglacial, which started around 11,000 years ago.

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=602


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 13, 2009, 05:02:14 am
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0608/sunprom_soho.jpg)
An erupting solar prominence photographed by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)

Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle

12.21.2006

Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.

 Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
 .

Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms.

Hathaway explains: "When a gust of solar wind hits Earth's magnetic field, the impact causes the magnetic field to shake. If it shakes hard enough, we call it a geomagnetic storm." In the extreme, these storms cause power outages and make compass needles swing in the wrong direction. Auroras are a beautiful side-effect.

Hathaway and Wilson looked at records of geomagnetic activity stretching back almost 150 years and noticed something useful:. "The amount of geomagnetic activity now tells us what the solar cycle is going to be like 6 to 8 years in the future," says Hathaway. A picture is worth a thousand words:
(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/cycle24/hathaway1_strip2.jpg)

Above: Peaks in geomagnetic activity (red) foretell solar maxima (black) more than six years in advance. [More]

In the plot, above, black curves are solar cycles; the amplitude is the sunspot number. Red curves are geomagnetic indices, specifically the Inter-hour Variability Index or IHV. "These indices are derived from magnetometer data recorded at two points on opposite sides of Earth: one in England and another in Australia. IHV data have been taken every day since 1868," says Hathaway.

Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient.

"We don't know why this works," says Hathaway. The underlying physics is a mystery. "But it does work."
(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/cycle24/hathaway2_med.gif)According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history.

Left: Hathaway and Wilson's prediction for the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. [More]

Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. "Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern," says Hathaway.

These results are just the latest signs pointing to a big Cycle 24. Most compelling of all, believes Hathaway, is the work of Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. "They have combined observations of the sun’s 'Great Conveyor Belt' with a sophisticated computer model of the sun’s inner dynamo to produce a physics-based prediction of the next solar cycle." In short, it's going to be intense. Details may be found in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"It all hangs together," says Hathaway. Stay tuned for solar activity.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 04, 2010, 01:53:09 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202010/1029_700pxWhileClimateChangeDeniers.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 05, 2010, 06:19:21 pm
(http://www.gwinnettforum.com/images/05images/05.0708.cartoon_large.gif).


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 05, 2010, 06:34:31 pm
(http://jeremysarber.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/stop-global-warming-cartoon.gif).
(http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/07/06/InconvenientTruth.jpg)


Proponents of Man-Made Climate Fears Enjoy Monumental Funding Advantage over Skeptics
source: ICECAP

(http://ihatealgore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-cooling-Al-Gore-300x266.jpg)



Often when I or any other skeptic are quoted in a newspaper, do a TV interview that is carried on the station’s or network’s web site or get mentioned in an alarmist blog, the first knee jerk reactions of some commenters is to accuse us of being part of some far right wing conspiracy to preserve the status quo (many of us are independent or even left of center politically – it is not about politics but about science) and continue our polluting ways (CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant fertiilzer), or most commonly of being a shill for big oil, or dirty from coal, or bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. That is clearly not the case.

Compared to the proponents riding the big grant money gravy train we are the person on the corner with a tin cup. Marc Morano did a comparison of the funding received by the proponents in comparison to the smaller funding for objective scientists who take a more skeptical or open minded position (the way science used to be before the lure of money corrupted it). Marc did not include the funding the alarmists blogs get from folks like George Soros, Fenton Communications, convicted Canadian felons, environmental groups and activists which runs in the many millions of dollars. Here is Marc’s summary. You may have other examples. If so please email me (jdaleo@icecap.us).


Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.  (LINK)

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone).  Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears.

Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails. Gore launched a $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, “Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government [to conduct research in] support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears. “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) “Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann added.

The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and $500,000 from the David Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation (ExxonMobil) over the past two decades. To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider: One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received from an oil giant in the past two decades.  To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving from an oil giant over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.”

http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://ihatealgore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-cooling-Al-Gore-300x266.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ihatealgore.com/%3Fp%3D1062&usg=__ye0vByPVovw8l0C6rGL5KNHeijo=&h=266&w=300&sz=28&hl=en&start=38&um=1&tbnid=hR4UTu5RlfHr8M:&tbnh=103&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Bcooling%2Bcartoons%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 05, 2010, 07:16:52 pm
(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/al-gore-speech.gif).
(http://www.basinpipes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/gore-cartoon.jpg)
(http://www.moonbattery.com/al-gore_snake-oil-salesman.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on January 05, 2010, 07:33:36 pm
Yer - but the first hurdle was the 2007 bit - and then there's the small problem of the Author working with/for the Heartland Institute (which is funded by Exxon - as are most skeptics).

 :)


Hang on a sec - sure you're not confusing the Author"s" (there's more than one) workplace when its their findings from academic work presumably carried out at their various institutions?  The fact that Heartland finds the research convenient for their view is of no surprise (if it was contradictory then we'd assume they wouldnt be published by Heartland) but I dont think you can say these people are working with/for Heartland... and the same could be said of govt funded programs used to peddle IPCC/human induced global warming/climate change agendas... and we've seen the failed hockey sticks, we've seen evidence of data manipulation, we're seeing too many scientists speaking out against the assumptions and basis of human caused global warming/climate change for the debate to be over despite the attempts to hurry things along while trying to drown out opposing views.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 05, 2010, 07:45:25 pm
(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/gore_robot.jpg).

(http://www.moonbattery.com/panic_button.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on January 07, 2010, 04:29:16 pm
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af3_1228946683
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/simpson_bio.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/27/now-this-is-interesting-pielke-on-dr-joanne-simpson/


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on January 07, 2010, 04:44:08 pm

Hmmm.  A new fly-on-the-wall TV series "When scientists go bad" perhaps???


....Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock. When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/


More on Michael Mann:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=2&oq=michael+mann+hock&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUK_enGB324GB324&q=michael+mann+hockey+stick+hoax


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on January 08, 2010, 01:08:43 am
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” –

Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.



"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” 

Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.



“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/36010144.html

The full report here:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=29582132&CFTOKEN=14381516


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 08, 2010, 09:10:37 am
Airport chaos as icy weather grips northern Europe

The icy weather gripping northern Europe has disrupted flights at airports in the UK, France, the Irish Republic and the Netherlands.
Many flights were delayed or cancelled at Orly airport in Paris, Dublin airport and Amsterdam-Schiphol, as well as major UK airports.
In Germany, at least nine homeless men aged from 42 to 62 froze to death.
A Eurostar train was stuck for about two hours in the Channel Tunnel on Thursday. It later reached the UK.
Four other Eurostar trains were cancelled, a company spokesman said.
Last month the Eurostar service was suspended for three days after several trains broke down in the tunnel. Powdery snow getting into the engines was identified as the cause.
Widespread delays
Many parts of Germany saw temperatures fall below -10C on Thursday, the Deutsche Welle news website reports.
Grit supplies for clearing snow are running very low in many parts of Germany.

Traffic jams around Schiphol airport made road gritting difficult
In the North Rhine-Westphalia region two derailments in as many days have caused havoc with the rail timetable, triggering cancellations and delays.
In the Irish Republic, Dublin airport is open but Knock airport has suspended flights.
All roads into Dublin are extremely icy and hundreds of Irish schools have closed, the Irish Times reports.
Heavy snow caused big traffic jams around Amsterdam and Haarlem on Wednesday evening, Radio Netherlands reports. Few buses were running in the affected areas.
Icy roads have disrupted road freight deliveries to France's Channel ports. Snow is blanketing a large swathe of France, reaching as far south as Bordeaux.
In Hemavan, in the far north of Sweden, a new winter low of -40.8C (-41.4F) was recorded overnight, Radio Sweden reports.
The Arctic freeze has also seen temperatures in central Sweden plummet to between -30 and -40C - the coldest weather since the mid-1980s.
The winter death toll in Poland has reached 122 - most of the victims reportedly homeless people.
In Burzyska nad Bugiem, in the east of the country, the army has installed makeshift bridges after flooding and ice split the village in two.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/cold_weather/img/weather_maps_1.gif)

The current big chill is a result of high pressure over the polar region, which has pushed cold air out of the Arctic towards much of northern Europe, parts of Asia and the US. Winds from the north and north east, rather than the south and south west, have brought freezing temperatures to the UK.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/cold_weather/img/weather_maps_2.gif)
Provisional Met Office figures for December show temperatures for much of the UK were 1.5C and 2.5C below the mean temperatures for the last 30 years. Scotland saw temperatures dip still lower - from 2.5C to 3.5C. On Tuesday, temperatures in Scotland plunged to -15C in places.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/cold_weather/img/weather_maps_3.gif)
Winds from the north also brought cold weather to parts of Asia, with Beijing receiving its heaviest snowfall for nearly 60 years. At the weekend, up to 30cm (12in) of snow fell in China's capital and its neighbouring port city of Tianjin. Dozens of people have also died in a cold snap in northern India.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/cold_weather/img/weather_maps_4.gif)
However, while parts of the world suffer freezing temperatures, the seesaw patterns mean other areas are warmer than usual, including Alaska, northern Canada and the Mediterranean. Met Office figures for the end of 2009 show some places dropped 10C below the average, while others were 10C above.

Global Brrrrrrrrrr wwww Warming Is blown Away By The Cold Wind  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 08, 2010, 09:45:43 am
Global Cooling? Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years

RIA Novosti
Friday January 11, 2008

Northern parts of Saudi Arabia are covered with snow with schools, mosques and administrative bodies paralyzed, local media reported Friday.

The oil-rich kingdom is being hit with subzero temperatures and snow storms with freezing winds of up to 50 km/h (30mp/h). Some regions have been experiencing problems with water supplies as pipes have frozen, and livestock has died from the cold.

The Saudi Gazette reported late in December that the winter was expected to last 89 days, with temperatures reaching below zero. National media said the winter is the coldest in the country for 20 years.
Morning and afternoon prayers are being combined in many mosques because of the morning cold and some schools will reopen later than scheduled.

The bad weather is fun for children and teenagers, however, who have been making snowballs and building snowmen with enthusiasm.

http://infowars.net/articles/january2008/110108Cooling.htm


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: bennyboo on January 12, 2010, 12:53:05 am

Some pretty pictures of Europe and US under the snow.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/image.cfm?c_id=2&gal_objectid=10619048&gallery_id=108765

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/image.cfm?c_id=2&gal_objectid=10619048&gallery_id=108765


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Sir Blodsnogger on January 12, 2010, 04:03:17 am
The net effect of the recent snow storms in Europe will be more global warming because the sun will melt the snow and it will get warmer.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on January 12, 2010, 07:59:28 am
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on January 12, 2010, 09:06:40 am



awww sheesh I think I have had the equivalent of a religious conversion

 
 --- I've  advanced to two layers of thermals, plus one acrylic and one woollen over the last week --- was thinking it might be the draught from them iceburgers that are on their way to Aussie

now we gotta phart more and cut down all the trees we planted

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. 

more



the link ain't working   (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/11emcry.gif)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on January 12, 2010, 09:21:29 am



awww sheesh I think I have had the equivalent of a religious conversion

 
 --- I've  advanced to two layers of thermals, plus one acrylic and one woollen over the last week --- was thinking it might be the draught from them iceburgers that are on their way to Aussie

now we gotta phart more and cut down all the trees we planted




the link ain't working   (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/11emcry.gif)



"Oh Bother!" said Pooh as he chambered another round..........

Should be OK now - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on January 12, 2010, 10:03:56 am

"Oh Bother!" said Pooh as he chambered another round..........

Should be OK now - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

tnx, that one didn't misfire. I think this fits here now  http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,211.0/msg,65994.html 



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 12, 2010, 02:27:22 pm
(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/al-gore-speech.gif).


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Magoo on January 22, 2010, 07:59:23 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3251967/Apology-for-errors-in-key-climate-change-report
Apology for errors in key climate change report
AP
Last updated 00:00 22/01/2010
Share
Print
Text Size
Relevant offers

Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologise and promise to be more careful.

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicised the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. And they do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.

But the mistakes open the door for more attacks from climate change skeptics.

"The credibility of the IPCC depends on the thoroughness with which its procedures are adhered to," Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told The Associated Press in an e-mail. "The procedures have been violated in this case. That must not be allowed to happen again because the credibility of climate change policy can only be based on credible science."

The incident follows a furor late last year over the release of stolen e-mails in which climate scientists talked about suppressing data and freezing out skeptics of global warming. And on top of that, an intense cold spell has some people questioning whether global warming exists.

In a statement, the climate change panel expressed regret over what it called "poorly substantiated estimates" about the Himalayan glaciers.

"The IPCC has established a reputation as a real gold standard in assessment; this is an unfortunate black mark," said Chris Field, a Stanford University professor who in 2008 took over as head of this part of the IPCC research. "None of the experts picked up on the fact that these were poorly substantiated numbers. From my perspective, that's an area where we have an opportunity to do much better."

Patrick Michaels, a global warming skeptic and scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called on the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign, adding: "I'd like to know how such an absurd statement made it through the review process. It is obviously wrong."

However, a number of scientists, including some critics of the IPCC, said the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.

The mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves, including one who is an IPCC co-author.

The report in question is the second of four issued by the IPCC in 2007 on global warming. This 838-page document had chapters on each continent. The errors were in a half-page section of the Asia chapter. The section got it wrong as to how fast the thousands of glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, scientists said.

"It is a very shoddily written section," said Graham Cogley, a professor of geography and glaciers at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, who brought the error to everyone's attention. "It wasn't copy-edited properly."

Cogley, who wrote a letter about the problems to Science magazine that was published online Wednesday, cited these mistakes:

- The paragraph starts, "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Cogley and Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.

- It says that if the Earth continues to warm, the "likelihood of them disappearing by the 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." Nowhere in peer-reviewed science literature is 2035 mentioned. However, there is a study from Russia that says glaciers could come close to disappearing by 2350. Probably the numbers in the date were transposed, Cogley said.

- The paragraph says: "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035." Cogley said there are only 33,000 square kilometres of glaciers in the Himalayas.

- The entire paragraph is attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from the WWF, Cogley said. And further, the IPCC likes to brag that it is based on peer-reviewed science, not advocacy group reports. Cogley said the WWF cited the popular science press as its source.

- A table says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2840 metres. Then comes a mathematics mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 metres a year, when it really is only 23.5 metres a year.

Still, Cogley said: "I'm convinced that the great bulk of the work reported in the IPCC volumes was trustworthy and is trustworthy now as it was before the detection of this mistake." He credited Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon with telling him about the errors.

However, Colorado University environmental science and policy professor Roger Pielke Jr said the errors point to a "systematic breakdown in IPCC procedures," and that means there could be more mistakes.

A number of scientists pointed out that at the end of the day, no one is disputing the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking.

"What is happening now is comparable with the Titanic sinking more slowly than expected," de Boer said in his e-mail. "But that does not alter the inevitable consequences, unless rigorous action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taken."


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on January 22, 2010, 08:33:00 am
Quote
The IPCC has established a reputation as a real gold standard in assessment;


(http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/2funny.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Magoo on January 22, 2010, 08:41:23 am
Quote
But the mistakes open the door for more attacks from climate change skeptics
Oh!!! did they think the door was shut at some time? (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/undecided.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on January 22, 2010, 12:24:00 pm
Oh!!! did they think the door was shut at some time? (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/undecided.gif)

Apparently the 'science' was settled...


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 22, 2010, 05:10:52 pm
They must be global cooling skeptics


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 27, 2010, 02:51:43 pm

Bill McKibben — Climate Change's O.J. Simpson Moment

posted February 25, 2010 | TomDispatch.com (http://www.tomdispatch.com/)

“In early 2009,” writes Bill McKibben in a soon-to-be-published new book, “just as Obama was getting set to unveil his energy plans, word came that 2,340 lobbyists had registered to work on climate change on Capitol Hill (that’s about six per congressman), 85 percent of them devoted to slowing down progress.” By early 2010, you can see the results of such efforts, multiplied many times over by the staggering levels of support available for anti-climate-change work from the richest industry on the planet: the energy business. All this was not helped, of course, by the much hyped “climate-gate” which proved that climate-change scientists were fallible human beings and not simply extraterrestrial super-brains. These “scandals” were, in turn, blown up to proportions that seemed to blot out the very image of the disappearing Arctic icepack.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the latest poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/new-poll-results-reveal-t_b_439593.html) on the American public’s attitude toward climate change shows startling drops in the belief in the very existence of climate change, in humanity's role in causing it, and in its import for the planet: a 14-point drop since October 2008 in Americans who believe climate change is happening at all (to 57%), a 10-point drop in those who believe that human activity is at the root of the problem (to 47%), and a 13-point drop in those who claim to be “somewhat” or “very” worried about the problem (to 50%).

What’s strangest in all this is that the evidence for our changing planet seems to stare us in the face — from the previously mythical, now navigable Northwest Passage to melting glaciers just about everywhere to more intense storms (including, of course, more intense snowstorms because, despite the name “global warming,” no one has yet banished winter from the planet). What makes this sadder yet is that, if the U.S. refuses to deal with our planet’s health and well-being (and ours), everything becomes so much harder, so much less likely. If you want to put all of this into some reasonable perspective, when you’ve finished Bill McKibben’s latest piece, think about ordering his new book Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805090568/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) (to be published this April). The title is unsettling — especially for an editor, with those two “a”s in Eaarth — and the book more so, but it’s not without hope and it could be the necessary guide to, and text for, the new planet with ever quirkier weather on which, after so many thousands of years, we humans suddenly find ourselves. It’s as if we’ve landed on Pandora (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175210/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_another_planet_for_james_cameron/) without any of the charm. (By the way, don’t miss the latest TomCast (http://tomdispatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/bill-mckibben-on-creating-climate_24.html), the site’s accompanying audio interview with Bill McKibben on what to make of climate-science scandals.)


— Tom Engelhardt



The Attack on Climate-Change Science

Why It’s the O.J. Moment of the Twenty-First Century

By Bill McKibben (http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/billmckibben)

Twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I wrote what many have called the first book for a general audience on global warming. One of the more interesting reviews came from the Wall Street Journal. It was a mixed and judicious appraisal. “The subject,” the reviewer said, “is important, the notion is arresting, and Mr. McKibben argues convincingly.” And that was not an outlier: around the same time, the first president Bush announced that he planned to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.”

I doubt that’s what the Journal will say about my next book when it comes out in a few weeks, and I know that no GOP presidential contender would now dream of acknowledging that human beings are warming the planet. Sarah Palin is currently calling climate science “snake oil” and last week, the Utah legislature, in a move straight out of the King Canute playbook, passed a resolution condemning "a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome" on a nearly party-line vote.

And here’s what’s odd. In 1989, I could fit just about every scientific study on climate change on top of my desk. The science was still thin. If my reporting made me think it was nonetheless convincing, many scientists were not yet prepared to agree.

Now, you could fill the Superdome with climate-change research data. (You might not want to, though, since Hurricane Katrina demonstrated just how easy it was to rip holes in its roof.) Every major scientific body in the world has produced reports confirming the peril. All 15 of the warmest years on record have come in the two decades that have passed since 1989. In the meantime, the Earth’s major natural systems have all shown undeniable signs of rapid flux: melting Arctic and glacial ice, rapidly acidifying seawater, and so on.

Somehow, though, the onslaught against the science of climate change has never been stronger, and its effects, at least in the U.S., never more obvious: fewer Americans believe humans are warming the planet. At least partly as a result, Congress feels little need to consider global-warming legislation, no less pass it; and as a result of that failure, progress towards any kind of international agreement on climate change has essentially ground to a halt.

Climate-Change Denial as an O.J. Moment

The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. It’s worth trying to understand how they’ve done it. The best analogy, I think, is to the O.J. Simpson trial, an event that’s begun to recede into our collective memory. For those who were conscious in 1995, however, I imagine that just a few names will make it come back to life. Kato Kaelin, anyone? Lance Ito?

The Dream Team of lawyers assembled for Simpson’s defense had a problem: it was pretty clear their guy was guilty. Nicole Brown’s blood was all over his socks, and that was just the beginning. So Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian et al. decided to attack the process, arguing that it put Simpson’s guilt in doubt, and doubt, of course, was all they needed. Hence, those days of cross-examination about exactly how Dennis Fung had transported blood samples, or the fact that Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman had used racial slurs when talking to a screenwriter in 1986.

If anything, they were actually helped by the mountain of evidence. If a haystack gets big enough, the odds only increase that there will be a few needles hidden inside. Whatever they managed to find, they made the most of: in closing arguments, for instance, Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and called him “a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America’s worst nightmare, and the personification of evil.” His only real audience was the jury, many of whom had good reason to dislike the Los Angeles Police Department, but the team managed to instill considerable doubt in lots of Americans tuning in on TV as well. That’s what happens when you spend week after week dwelling on the cracks in a case, no matter how small they may be.

Similarly, the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great boon for those who would like, for a variety of reasons, to deny that the biggest problem we’ve ever faced is actually a problem at all. If you have a three-page report, it won’t be overwhelming and it’s unlikely to have many mistakes. Three thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? That pretty much guarantees you’ll get something wrong.

Indeed, the IPCC managed to include, among other glitches, a spurious date for the day when Himalayan glaciers would disappear. It won’t happen by 2035, as the report indicated — a fact that has now been spread so widely across the Internet that it’s more or less obliterated another, undeniable piece of evidence: virtually every glacier on the planet is, in fact, busily melting.

Similarly, if you managed to hack 3,000 emails from some scientist’s account, you might well find a few that showed them behaving badly, or at least talking about doing so. This is the so-called “Climate-gate” scandal from an English research center last fall. The English scientist Phil Jones has been placed on leave while his university decides if he should be punished for, among other things, not complying with Freedom of Information Act requests.

Call him the Mark Fuhrman of climate science; attack him often enough and maybe people will ignore the inconvenient mountain of evidence about climate change that the world’s scientific researchers have, in fact, compiled. Indeed, you can make almost exactly the same kind of fuss Johnnie Cochran made — that’s what Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) did, insisting the emails proved “scientific fascism,” and the climate skeptic Christopher Monckton called his opponents “Hitler youth.” Such language filters down. I’m now used to a daily diet of angry email, often with subject lines like the one that arrived yesterday: “Nazi Moron Scumbag.”

If you’re smart, you can also take advantage of lucky breaks that cross your path. Say a record set of snowstorms hit Washington D.C. It won’t even matter that such a record is just the kind of thing scientists have been predicting, given the extra water vapor global warming is adding to the atmosphere. It’s enough that it’s super-snowy in what everyone swore was a warming world.

For a gifted political operative like, say, Marc Morano, who runs the Climate Depot website (http://www.climatedepot.com/), the massive snowfalls this winter became the grist for a hundred posts poking fun at the very idea that anyone could still possibly believe in, you know, physics. Morano, who really is good, posted a link to a live webcam so readers could watch snow coming down; his former boss, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), had his grandchildren build an igloo on the Capitol grounds, with a sign that read: "Al Gore’s New Home." These are the things that stick in people’s heads. If the winter glove won’t fit, you must acquit.

Why We Don’t Want to Believe in Climate Change

The climate deniers come with a few built-in advantages. Thanks to Exxon Mobil and others with a vested interest in debunking climate-change research, their “think tanks” have plenty of money (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets), none of which gets wasted doing actual research to disprove climate change. It’s also useful for a movement to have its own TV network, Fox, though even more crucial to the denial movement are a few rightwing British tabloids which validate each new “scandal” and put it into media play.

That these guys are geniuses at working the media was proved this February when even the New York Times ran a front page story (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/earth/09climate.html), “Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel”, which recycled most of the accusations of the past few months. What made it such a glorious testament to their success was the chief source cited by the Times: one Christopher Monckton, or Lord Monckton as he prefers to be called since he is some kind of British viscount. He is also identified as a “former advisor to Margaret Thatcher,” and he did write a piece for the American Spectator during her term as prime minister offering his prescriptions for “the only way to stop AIDS”:

“...screen the entire population regularly and… quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”

He speaks with equal gusto and good sense on matters climatic — and now from above the fold in the paper of record.

Access to money and the media is not the only, or even the main reason, for the success of the climate deniers, though. They’re not actually spending all that much cash and they’ve got legions of eager volunteers doing much of the internet lobbying entirely for free. Their success can be credited significantly to the way they tap into the main currents of our politics of the moment with far more savvy and power than most environmentalists can muster. They’ve understood the popular rage at elites. They’ve grasped the widespread feelings of powerlessness in the U.S., and the widespread suspicion that we’re being ripped off by mysterious forces beyond our control.

Some of that is, of course, purely partisan. The columnist David Brooks, for instance, recently said (http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/08/david-brooks-science-global-warming-is-real-manmade-nuclear-power-gail-collin/): “On the one hand, I totally accept the scientific authorities who say that global warming is real and it is manmade. On the other hand, I feel a frisson of pleasure when I come across evidence that contradicts the models… [in part] because I relish any fact that might make Al Gore look silly.” But the passion with which people attack Gore more often seems focused on the charge that he’s making large sums of money from green investments, and that the whole idea is little more than a scam designed to enrich everyone involved. This may be wrong — Gore has testified under oath that he donates his green profits to the cause — and scientists are not getting rich researching climate change (constant blog comments to the contrary), but it resonates with lots of people. I get many emails a day on the same theme: “The game is up. We’re on to you.”

When I say it resonates with lots of people, I mean lots of people. O.J.’s lawyers had to convince a jury made up mostly of black women from central city L.A., five of whom reported that they or their families had had “negative experiences” with the police. For them, it was a reasonably easy sell. When it comes to global warming, we’re pretty much all easy sells because we live the life that produces the carbon dioxide that’s at the heart of the crisis, and because we like that life.

Very few people really want to change in any meaningful way, and given half a chance to think they don’t need to, they’ll take it. Especially when it sounds expensive, and especially when the economy stinks. Here’s (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/David-Harsanyi-Who-doesnt-trust-science-now-84691762.html) David Harsanyi, a columnist for the Denver Post: “If they’re going to ask a nation — a world — to fundamentally alter its economy and ask citizens to alter their lifestyles, the believers’ credibility and evidence had better be unassailable.”

“Unassailable” sets the bar impossibly high when there is a dedicated corps of assailants out there hard at work. It is true that those of us who want to see some national and international effort to fight global warming need to keep making the case that the science is strong. That’s starting to happen. There are new websites and iPhone apps (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/skeptical-science-iphone-app) to provide clear and powerful answers to the skeptic trash-talking, and strangely enough, the denier effort may, in some ways, be making the case itself: if you go over the multi-volume IPCC report with a fine tooth comb and come up with three or four lousy citations, that’s pretty strong testimony to its essential accuracy.

Clearly, however, the antiseptic attempt to hide behind the magisterium of Science in an effort to avoid the rough-and-tumble of Politics is a mistake. It’s a mistake because science can be — and, in fact, should be — infinitely argued about. Science is, in fact, nothing but an ongoing argument, which is one reason why it sounds so disingenuous to most people when someone insists that the science is “settled.” That’s especially true of people who have been told at various times in their lives that some food is good for you, only to be told later that it might increase your likelihood of dying.

Why Data Isn’t Enough

I work at Middlebury College, a topflight liberal arts school, so I’m surrounded by people who argue constantly. It’s fun.  One of the better skeptical takes on global warming that I know about is a weekly radio broadcast (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=499357815712) on our campus radio station run by a pair of undergraduates. They’re skeptics, but not cynics. Anyone who works seriously on the science soon realizes that we know more than enough to start taking action, but less than we someday will. There will always be controversy over exactly what we can now say with any certainty. That’s life on the cutting edge. I certainly don’t turn my back on the research—we’ve spent the last two years at 350.org (http://www.350.org/) building what Foreign Policy called “the largest ever coordinated global rally” around a previously obscure data point, the amount of atmospheric carbon that scientists say is safe, measured in parts per million.

But it’s a mistake to concentrate solely on the science for another reason. Science may be what we know about the world, but politics is how we feel about the world. And feelings count at least as much as knowledge. Especially when those feelings are valid. People are getting ripped off. They are powerless against large forces that are, at the moment, beyond their control. Anger is justified.

So let’s figure out how to talk about it. Let’s look at Exxon Mobil, which each of the last three years has made more money than any company in the history of money. Its business model involves using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the carbon dioxide that is the inevitable byproduct of the fossil fuel it sells. And yet we let it do this for free. It doesn't pay a red cent for potentially wrecking our world.

Right now, there’s a bill in the Congress — cap-and-dividend (http://cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm), it’s called — that would charge Exxon for that right, and send a check to everyone in the country every month. Yes, the company would pass on the charge at the pump, but 80% of Americans (all except the top-income energy hogs) would still make money (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15453166) off the deal. That represents good science, because it starts to send a signal that we should park that SUV, but it’s also good politics.

By the way, if you think there’s a scam underway, you’re right — and to figure it out just track the money going in campaign contributions to the politicians doing the bidding of the energy companies. Inhofe, the igloo guy? Over a million dollars (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582) from energy and utility companies and executives in the last two election cycles. You think Al Gore is going to make money from green energy? Check out what you get for running an oil company.

Worried that someone is going to wreck your future? You’re right about that, too. Right now, China is gearing up to dominate (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/27/technology/china_clean_energy.fortune/) the green energy market. They’re making the investments that mean future windmills and solar panels, even ones installed in this country, will be likely to arrive from factories in Chenzhou, not Chicago.

Coal companies have already eliminated most good mining jobs, simply by automating them in the search for ever higher profits. Now, they’re using their political power to make sure that miner’s kids won’t get to build wind turbines instead. Everyone should be mighty pissed — just not at climate-change scientists.

But keep in mind as well that fear and rage aren’t the only feelings around. They’re powerful feelings, to be sure, but they’re not all we feel. And they are not us at our best.

There’s also love, a force that has often helped motivate large-scale change, and one that cynics in particular have little power to rouse. Love for poor people around the world, for instance. If you think it’s not real, you haven’t been to church recently, especially evangelical churches across the country. People who take the Gospel seriously also take seriously indeed the injunction to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.

It’s becoming patently obvious that nothing challenges that goal quite like the rising seas and spreading deserts of climate change. That’s why religious environmentalism is one of the most effective emerging parts of the global warming movement; that’s why we were able to get thousands of churches ringing their bells 350 times last October to signify what scientists say is the safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere; that’s why Bartholomew, patriarch of the Orthodox church and leader of 400 million eastern Christians, said, “Global warming is a sin and 350 is an act of redemption.”

There’s also the deep love for creation, for the natural world. We were born to be in contact with the world around us and, though much of modernity is designed to insulate us from nature, it doesn’t really work. Any time the natural world breaks through — a sunset, an hour in the garden — we’re suddenly vulnerable to the realization that we care about things beyond ourselves. That’s why, for instance, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts are so important: get someone out in the woods at an impressionable age and you’ve accomplished something powerful. That’s why art and music need to be part of the story, right alongside bar graphs and pie charts. When we campaign about climate change at 350.org (http://www.350.org/), we make sure to do it in the most beautiful places we know, the iconic spots that conjure up people’s connection to their history, their identity, their hope.

The great irony is that the climate skeptics have prospered by insisting that their opponents are radicals. In fact, those who work to prevent global warming are deeply conservative, insistent that we should leave the world in something like the shape we found it. We want our kids to know the world we knew. Here’s the definition of radical: doubling the carbon content of the atmosphere because you’re not completely convinced it will be a disaster. We want to remove every possible doubt before we convict in the courtroom, because an innocent man in a jail cell is a scandal, but outside of it we should act more conservatively.

In the long run, the climate deniers will lose; they’ll be a footnote to history. (Hey, even O.J. is finally in jail.) But they’ll lose because we’ll all lose, because by delaying action, they will have helped prevent us from taking the steps we need to take while there’s still time. If we’re going to make real change while it matters, it’s important to remember that their skepticism isn’t the root of the problem. It simply plays on our deep-seated resistance to change. That’s what gives the climate cynics ground to operate. That’s what we need to overcome, and at bottom that’s a battle as much about courage and hope as about data.


______________________________________

• Bill McKibben is the author of a dozen books, including the forthcoming Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805090568/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) (Times Books, April 2010). He’s a scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont. Catch the latest TomCast (http://tomdispatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/bill-mckibben-on-creating-climate_24.html), TomDispatch.com’s audio interview with Bill McKibben on what to make of the climate-science scandals.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175211/tomgram%3A_bill_mckibben%2C_climate_change%27s_o.j._simpson_moment (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175211/tomgram%3A_bill_mckibben%2C_climate_change%27s_o.j._simpson_moment)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: ballasted moth on February 27, 2010, 06:36:01 pm
 Socialists always use bogus scams to take more control of peoples lives


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 14, 2011, 11:32:41 pm

Climate change and extreme weather link cannot be ignored

By KIRAN CHUG - The Dominion Post | 3:05PM - Thursday, 14 July 2011

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202011/5285448s_14Jul11.jpg)
EXTREME WEATHER: Scientists say more events like the tornado
that caused this destruction in Waikanae will occur as a result
of climate change. — ANDREW GORRIE/The Dominion Post.


HUMAN-INDUCED climate change will see more disastrous storms, heatwaves and floods afflict the globe.

Scientists have drawn the strongest link yet between climate change and extreme weather events, and say the connection can no longer be ignored.

  • Related story: Seven biggest storms to hit Wellington (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4649819/Seven-biggest-storms-to-hit-Wellington)

New Zealander Kevin Trenberth,  scientist who is the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, based in Colorado, said events of the past year and a half had been extraordinary.

"It's as clear a warning as we're going to get about prospects for the future."

Dr Trenberth said the world could expect more droughts, floods, intense storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.

More heat waves would bring consequences such as wild fires in their wake.

Although the scientific community had not reached a consensus yet on whether climate change was to blame, he said more work was being done in the area and it took scientists time to get to such a point.

Since the 1970s, water vapour in the atmosphere had increased by about four per cent, and he said the world was now noticing that "when it rains, it pours."

Professor Martin Manning of Victoria University's Climate Change Research Institute said countries were now looking at ways to prepare for the risks they faced, and the insurance industry in particular was taking notice.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5285118/Climate-change-and-extreme-weather-link-cannot-be-ignored (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5285118/Climate-change-and-extreme-weather-link-cannot-be-ignored)



While the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers” fiddle, Rome burns! (http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,6068.0.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 27, 2012, 03:54:45 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

California sea levels to rise 5-plus feet this century, study says

As climate change expands the oceans, sea levels will rise more than average along
the California coast because much of the state is sinking, according to a new report.


By TONY BARBOZA | 10:30PM - Sunday, June 24, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_70670563_24may12.jpg)
The destructive power of rising sea levels will be felt first when storms hit vulnerable places such
as Newport Beach, said Gary Griggs, director of the Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz.
Above, the Wedge at Newport Beach. — Photo: Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times/September 01, 2011.


SEA LEVELS Sea levels along the California coast are expected to rise up to 1 foot in 20 years, 2 feet by 2050 and as much as 5½ feet by the end of the century, climbing slightly more than the global average and increasing the risk of flooding and storm damage, a new study says.

That's because much of California is sinking, extending the reach of a sea that is warming and expanding because of climate change, according to a report by a committee of scientists released Friday by the National Research Council.

In Washington and Oregon, where geological processes are flexing the land upward, researchers predict a less dramatic sea level rise that will register below the global average.

The report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389), commissioned by California, Oregon, Washington and several federal agencies, is the closest look yet at how global warming — which causes ocean water to expand and ice to melt — will raise sea levels along the West Coast.

Tide gauges show that the world's oceans have risen about 7 inches in the last century, and that rate is accelerating, the report notes.

"Sea level rise isn't a political question, it's a scientific reality," said Gary Griggs (http://www.latimes.com/topic/sports/gary-griggs-PESPT002809.topic), director of the Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz and a member of the committee that produced the report.

Globally, the study predicts up to 9 inches of sea level rise by 2030, 1½ feet by 2050 and 4½ feet by 2100.

The projections are largely in line with other recent scientific estimates but substantially higher than the 2007 figures by the United Nations (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/international-law/united-nations-ORCUL000009.topic)' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because they factor in a greater contribution from melting ice.

The study was drafted by a committee of scientists formed as a result of a 2008 executive order by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, which directed state agencies to plan for the effects of sea level rise. The government agencies sponsored the study will use it to prepare for coastal erosion and flooding that is expected to threaten homes, businesses, roads, airports and other structures located within a few feet of the high-tide line.

The California Natural Resources Agency said in a statement that the report "confirms the need to take action to address the impacts of rising sea level."

The study shows how unevenly the sea will rise from place to place because of regional factors such as the movement of tectonic plates, climate patterns such as El Niño and the effects of melting glaciers and ice sheets in Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica.

For instance, although tide gauges in California show sea levels rising over the last century, levels have been falling north of Cape Mendocino as geological activity pushes up the land. A major earthquake in the Pacific Northwest, such as a magnitude 8, could upend that trend, causing parts of the coast to sink and suddenly raising sea levels by 3 feet or more, the report says.

The report is the latest to warn that the rising sea will place coastal communities at increasing risk, with most of the damage caused by a combination of big waves, storm surges and high tides. The warm ocean conditions of a strong El Niño can magnify those effects, the report says, expanding sea water and raising sea levels by about a foot for several months.

Coastal California could see serious damage from storms within a few decades, especially in low-lying areas of Southern California and the Bay Area. San Francisco International Airport, for instance, could flood if the sea rises a little more than a foot, a mark expected to be reached in the next few decades. Erosion could cause coastal cliffs to retreat more than 100 feet by 2100, according to the report.

For an idea of what's in store, the report says, look at what happened in the winter of 1983. That's when a series of potent El Niño-driven storms hit California's coast, causing more than $200 million in damage from flooding, high waves and erosion. More than 3,000 homes and businesses were damaged and 33 oceanfront homes destroyed.

Although the rise in sea levels will happen gradually, Griggs said, its destructive power will be felt first when storms hit vulnerable places such as Newport Beach and the San Francisco Bay.

"In the short term it's these severe storms in low-lying areas that are most problematic," Griggs said. "So we have to plan for that."


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-sea-level-20120625,0,7840116.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-sea-level-20120625,0,7840116.story)



From the Los Angeles Times....

Hey, California, hot enough for ya? Just wait!

By PAUL WHITEFIELD | 1:58PM - Monday, June 25, 2012

WITH APOLOGIES to Bob Dylan, do we need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?

Certainly it seems they don’t in North Carolina. There, lawmakers are considering a bill (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sea-level-20120624,0,3935676.story) that would essentially deny global warming and accompanying predictions of rising sea levels. All so developers can continue to make a buck off people who assume that if you build it, it must be safe — even if it isn’t.

In California, we’re also facing the threat of rising sea levels.

As The Times reported Friday (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/california-to-see-more-serious-sea-level-rise-report-says.html):

Sea levels along the California coast are expected to rise as much as 1 foot in 20 years, 2 feet by 2050 and as much as 5½ feet by the end of the century, climbing slightly faster than the global average and increasing the risk of flooding and storm damage, a new study says.

And it’s not just melting ice that’s working against us. Turns out the old saw about California sliding into the ocean is more accurate than you might’ve thought:

Much of California is slowly sinking, extending the reach of a sea that is getting hotter and expanding due to global warming, according to a report by a committee of scientists released Friday by the National Research Council.

But wait, there's more! It seems that the Golden State is going to get goldener (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/21/local/la-me-heat-20120621), as in burnt-toast gold:

“By the middle of the century, the number of days with temperatures above 95 degrees each year will triple in downtown Los Angeles, quadruple in portions of the San Fernando Valley and even jump five-fold in a portion of the High Desert in L.A. County,” according to a new UCLA climate change study.

Of course, I like to find silver linings in bad news. So here it is:  We’ll be hot, but if we want to go to the beach to cool off, the ocean won’t be as far away.

Still, it’s interesting to contrast the political reaction in L.A. to the climate news with that of the folks in North Carolina:

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/antonio-villaraigosa-PEPLT007500.topic) said the forecasts provide the groundwork for local governments, utilities, hospitals and other institutions to prepare for the hot spells to come. Villaraigosa said the region may have to strengthen building codes to reduce risk to residents. "That could mean replacing incentives with building codes requiring 'green' and 'cool' roofs, cool pavements, tree canopies and parks," he said.

Which, I suspect, is going to be much more expensive than following North Carolina’s example and simply ordering the Earth to stand still. Silly liberals!

Of course, the folks in North Carolina may yet have to deal with reality. The state's proposed law wants only past data to be used in assessing the future threat of rising seas. But on Monday, a report (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sea-level-atlantic-20120625,0,5813153.story) was released that has sobering data, from the past, about the East Coast's future, North Carolina's in particular:

Sea levels in a 620-mile "hot spot" along the Atlantic coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average, according to a new study by theU.S. Geological Survey.

The sharp rise in sea levels from North Carolina to Massachusetts could mean serious flooding and storm damage for major cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston (http://www.latimes.com/topic/us/massachusetts/suffolk-county-%28massachusetts%29/boston-PLGEO100100501131244.topic), as well as threats to wetlands habitats, the study said.

Since 1990, sea levels have risen 2 millimeters to 3.7 millimeters a year from Cape Hatteras (http://www.latimes.com/topic/us/north-carolina/dare-county/avon-%28dare-north-carolina%29/hatteras-PLGEO100100904010400.topic), North Carolina, on the Outer Banks (http://www.latimes.com/topic/travel/tourism-leisure/outer-banks-PLREC000005.topic), to Boston, said the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The global average for the same two-decade period was 0.6 millimeters to 1 millimeters per year.


Seems fairly conclusive to me. But I don't expect that this report will change the minds of ardent climate change deniers.

So for them, I propose a simple test:

Fill a glass of water nearly to the top.  Put some ice cubes in it. Let the ice cubes melt.

Observe what happens.

And then, perhaps, think again about whether it’s really a good idea to continue to build at the ocean’s edge. Even in North Carolina.

Oh, and if you live in California, keep that ice water handy.  You're going to need it.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-california-north-carolina-bad-news-20120625,0,7779214.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-california-north-carolina-bad-news-20120625,0,7779214.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on June 27, 2012, 04:34:54 pm
I get a sense of deja vu here.  Sea levels were supposed to rise astronomically in the 1980's.  They didn't, but were confidently predicted to rise in the 1990's - they didn't, but were inevitably going to rise in the 2000's - surprise, they didn't.  

Its about time the warmalists took their agenda and fucked off, somewhere far away.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on June 27, 2012, 04:48:22 pm
But Yak, if you don't believe in it you're a neanderthal. On the other hand, if you believe in the sky daddy (another unsupported theory) then you are a religious fuckwit.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on June 28, 2012, 10:45:07 am
No, in North Carolina they've based a bill based on not using whacky models, but on actual observation.

California has not experienced any special sea level rise, but they're basing their stupidity on computer models that have been shown to be extremely flawed. For example they've realised that twenty years of models (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/) have been completely wrong in Antarctica and doesn't reflect the reality down there at all.

Let's not forget James Hansen's scenarios from 1988, where we've followed scenario A in GHG usage, but under scenario C in temperature increases; scenario C was if we gave up everything and lived in the Garden of Eden Green Utopia.

(Computer models work fine when the parameters are known, otherwise they're a case of garbage in, garbage out)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 29, 2012, 12:30:15 am

From the Los Angeles Times....

USGS: Sea level in Atlantic ‘hot spot’ rising faster than world's

By DAVID ZUCCHINO | 11:25AM - Monday, June 25, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_20120625a_25may12.jpg)
A flooded road on Hatteras Island, North Carolina, after Hurricane Irene swept through the area.
 — Photo: Jim R. Bounds/Associated Press/August 28, 2011.


SEA LEVELS in a 620-mile “hot spot” along the Atlantic coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average, according to a new study by theU.S. Geological Survey.

The sharp rise in sea levels from North Carolina to Massachusetts could mean serious flooding and storm damage for major cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston, as well as threats to wetlands habitats, the study said.

Since 1990, sea levels have risen 2 millimeters to 3.7 millimeters a year from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, on the Outer Banks, to Boston, said the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The global average for the same two-decade period was 0.6 millimeters to 1 millimeters per year.

Experts at the Geological Survey, along with other scientists, say that climate change and other factors will likely produce an average global sea level rise of two to three feet by 2100, said Asbury Sallenger, a USGS oceanographer who led the study, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. The study predicts that sea levels will rise an additional 8 inches to 11 inches in the Atlantic coast “hot spot”, he said.

The main cause of recent sea level increases along the coast is the slowing of Atlantic currents caused by the arrival of fresh water from the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the study said.

“Cities in the hot spot, like Norfolk, New York and Boston, already experience damaging floods during relatively low-intensity storms,” Sallenger said.  Accelerated sea level rise in the hot spot will raise the risk of flooding and the height of storm surges, he said.

The USGS report follows a study by the National Research Council predicting that sea levels along the California coast will rise as much as one foot in just 20 years, two feet by 2050 and five-and-a-half feet by 2100.  The report, released Friday, says the increases are caused by climate change and by the sinking of land masses in much of California.

The study predicts that global sea levels will rise 9 inches by 2030, 18 inches by 2050, and four-and-a-half feet by 2100.

Sea level rise is a sensitive subject for some political conservatives, who say that global warming is a hoax and that sea levels are not in danger of rising precipitously. The USGS study is significant because it provides data showing that sea levels have risen over the past two decades along the Atlantic Coast, regardless of the cause.

This spring, Republicans in the North Carolina legislature introduced a bill that would require sea level rise forecasts to be based on past patterns and would all but outlaw projections based on climate change data.

Using climate change and other data, a science panel with the state Coastal Resources Commission said that sea levels along the North Carolina coast could rise an average of 39 inches by 2100.  Coastal business and development interests complained to the Republican-controlled legislature, saying the projections could trigger regulations costing businesses and homeowners millions of dollars.

Sallenger called the North Carolina science panel’s 39-inch prediction “totally sensible”.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sea-level-atlantic-20120625,0,5813153.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sea-level-atlantic-20120625,0,5813153.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 29, 2012, 12:30:34 am

From the Los Angeles Times....

Mass evacuations ordered as wildfires rage in Colorado

32,000 people flee homes in the Colorado Springs area, including
parts of the Air Force Academy, and Boulder is under threat.


By JENNY DEAM and JOHN M. GLIONNA | 6:41PM - Wednesday, June 27, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_coloradosprings_26jun12.jpg)
The Waldo Canyon fire roars through a neighboord in the foothills near Colorado Springs, Colorado.
 — Photo: Helen H. Richardson/Denver Post/June 26, 2012.


COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado — Marking the worst fire season in Colorado history, three major blazes are burning uncontrolled in the Rocky Mountain state, destroying hundreds of homes, prompting mass evacuations in Colorado Springs and threatening the city of Boulder 100 miles away.

For weeks, Colorado has been in a state of siege as the mammoth High Park fire raged unhindered in mountain wilderness west of Fort Collins, destroying 257 rural homesteads and cabins, while residents of cities and suburbs to the east held their collective breath and prayed that the flames would not reach them.

Experts are warning already fire-weary Coloradans that this could be the new routine for their state — that the blazes could rage all summer until the arrival of the autumn rains.

On Wednesday, the Waldo Canyon fire, named for a popular hiking area west of the state's second-largest city, Colorado Springs, continued to burn unchecked. It prompted the evacuation of 32,000 people in the metropolitan area of 600,000, including portions of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

The fire, which ignited Saturday, exploded late Tuesday, doubling in size in just hours. Propelled by winds blowing 60 mph, the blaze jumped barriers to scourge neighborhoods, destroying dozens of homes as well as such landmarks as the historic Flying W Ranch, a popular tourist attraction that drew as many as 1,000 people a night for music and western-style dining.

Susan Joy Paul had stood her ground inside the Colorado Springs home where she raised her now-grown children, until she heard the panic in a friend's voice on the phone. With the main highways clogged with 20,000 evacuees, she fled along back roads, finally reaching a vantage point where she could survey her Shadow Valley neighborhood.

"It looked like big red torches going up," she said. "That's when it hit me: Those are houses."

Tom Tidwell, chief of the U.S. Forest Service in Washington, said this year was the culmination of nearly a decade of record fire seasons. "Definitely we're having a changing climate," he said, adding that less snowfall in Colorado last winter brought the fire season to the state more than a month early.

"This significantly exceeds what we saw 10, 20, 30 years ago," said Tidwell, a former firefighter. He said the Colorado fires were especially dangerous because they were so erratic, adding that large fires could create their own weather patterns, rendering traditional weather forecasts unreliable.

Mammoth fires raged around the West in 2002, threatening giant sequoia groves in California, charring a million acres of southern Oregon forest land and forcing mass evacuations in New Mexico's high country. The amount of land burned nationally in wildfires declined later in the decade but then ballooned again last year, when parts of drought-stricken Texas were hit by waves of flames.

Dry weather and high temperatures are again producing incendiary conditions, with forecasters predicting higher-than-normal wildfire potential in much of the West, including the Sierra Nevada and portions of the Southwest and the Rockies.

In the Boulder area, residents have learned to keep a wary eye on the sky, watching not only the plume of smoke rising from the outskirts of town but also the slurry bombers roaring overhead to dump their loads.

By Wednesday, the fire was just a mile and a half from town, and authorities had evacuated 28 households and warned another 2,500 to be ready to flee.

Meanwhile, officials worry about the fatigue of thousands of firefighters on the line. In northern Colorado, where the 136-square-mile High Park fire has already destroyed hundreds of homes and killed one woman, fire managers offered to shift to Boulder and Colorado Springs to join the fights there.

President Obama planned to visit the state's fire zones Friday to thank firefighters.

Colorado's climate and vegetation have the capacity to create enormous fires. In summer 2002, the state's largest-ever blaze thwarted efforts to control it and marched ominously toward Denver with a fire front 20 miles long and 14 miles wide.

Meteorologists said the 15,000-foot smoke plume from the Hayman fire spawned nightly thunderstorms in neighboring states and triggered two tornadoes that spun through Kansas. Ultimately the Hayman fire destroyed 133 homes, forced the evacuation of more than 5,300 people and cost $40 million.

The newest blazes have sent Coloradans into a frenzied pitch of fire fear and loathing. Even outside the burn areas, days of record triple-digit heat and strong winds have created a dry-as-dust landscape.

In a state where exercise is a way of life for residents, the unpredictable nature of the fires has hot-wired nerves. People watch as the flames destroy groups of houses but leave one untouched. Children call their parents — and vice versa — each time the fire changes direction or someone spots a lightning strike.

Through tweets and dramatic fire pictures posted on social media sites, uneasy residents have reached out to friends and family — and anyone else who will listen to their stories of being in the path of unpredictable fires. Others talk about the panic they feel every time they see a firetruck hurry down the road.

"Any time I see or hear a firetruck race by our house, my chest and stomach get tight, especially if there has been recent lightning," said Roxanne Hawn, who lives just outside Denver, miles from the blaze. "It's like being afraid of heights — the clenching inside feels the same."

Felice Vigil, a mother of three, awoke Tuesday in the residential section of the Air Force Academy unable to breathe. Even though the fire was nearby, she had felt reassured that she and her family were safe because they were on a military installation.

But when she looked outside, she said, the smoke swirling through her yard was so thick it looked like a solid object, waist-high. "It was like something out of a Freddy Krueger movie," she said Wednesday.

By late afternoon, a sudden burst of wind had upended her patio furniture. The fire was racing toward the academy as military police rolled through the streets telling everyone to get out.

"I tried to be calm for my kids," she said, standing outside a YMCA evacuation shelter, "but inside I was terrified, completely panicked." With no idea whether her house survived, she is now staying with family. She took her children to the shelter so they could swim and get their minds off what they had seen.

There is little doubt this fire will stay with them, though. Gabe Vigil, 8, proudly held up a chalk drawing of a perfect house. "This is what I hope our house still looks like," he said.

Susan Joy Paul symbolizes Colorado's angst of just not knowing. She had kept her eye on the Waldo Canyon fire since it started Saturday.

On Tuesday, a friend told her the fire had jumped a nearby ridge, that the massive cloud of billowing smoke was heading her way. Already, daytime had turned to night as smoke blocked the sun. Giant flakes of ash — some as wide as her hand — swirled in her frontyard.

She heard an explosion, maybe a generator, and then the lights and TV went out. "This is not right. We shouldn't be here," she told her roommate. "I feel like we're in hell."

Two police cars drove down the street, bullhorns blaring for everyone to evacuate. "We had no time," she said.

She threw her laptop, her notes for the book she is writing, some food, pictures of her children and a backpack into her compact car and started driving. "It was so confusing. Black ash was flying around like bats. At every corner there were cops yelling at me, waving me in different directions," she said.

On Wednesday, Paul said she could almost forget about the nightmare that unfolded the night before. Almost, but not quite. "I need to cry," she said, her voice teetering on despair. "I need to but can't. Not yet. Not until I know."

Paul was camped at a local library, trying to get some work done, fearing the worst, praying that life as she knew it wasn't over.

"I want to see it, but I don't," she said of her home. "I want to see it like it was, but I know that's not going to happen."


Deam, a special correspondent, reported from Colorado Springs and Glionna from Las Vegas.

Times staff writers Julie Cart and Bettina Boxall in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-colorado-fires-20120628,0,5014184,full.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-colorado-fires-20120628,0,5014184,full.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: AnFaolchudubh on June 29, 2012, 11:10:54 am
There are a number of tree species in the US that only seed or at least their seeds won't germinate unless they have a wild fire...


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 01, 2012, 07:03:20 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Heat wave: 13 dead, 3 million lose power in Mid-Atlantic storms

By MELANIE MASON and LAURA J. NELSON | 4:21PM - Saturday, June 30, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_20120630a_30jun12.jpg)
An uprooted tree lies across a street near American University after a violent storm passed Friday
through Washington, D.C. — Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/GettyImages/June 30, 2012.


WASHINGTON — The violent storms that ripped through the eastern United States left at least 13 people dead and millions without power on a day when temperatures hovered in the triple digits.

The Mid-Atlantic region had already been baking in 100-plus-degree heat when lightning storms and winds of up to 80 mph tore through the area Friday night. On Saturday, crews worked to fix broken traffic signals, repair utility poles and restore power — and air conditioning — to more than 3 million people.

The high-speed winds are called a derecho, from the Spanish word for "straight ahead" — a long, bow-shaped band of storms that can hurtle across more than 240 miles in a matter of hours.

The violent weather was blamed for 13 deaths, including six in Virginia; two in New Jersey; two in Maryland and one each in Kentucky, Ohio and Washington, according to the Associated Press. The dead included a 90-year-old Virginia woman who was sleeping when a tree fell on her house, and young cousins who were camping when their tent was crushed by a tree.

At least 20 people were injured, according to the National Weather Service.

The governors of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Ohio, as well as local officials in Washington, declared states of emergency. Such declarations clear the way for officials to seek financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other relief organizations.

Officials said it could take utility companies days to restore power to the nine states affected, as far west as Indiana.

In northwest Washington, where an outdoor thermostat read 103 degrees Farenheit in late afternoon, the streets were littered with tree branches and debris.

In front of the Montenegro Embassy, yellow police tape cordoned off a patch of road and sidewalk where a sizable limb had snapped off a large tree and landed on a gray Infiniti sedan parked below, smashing the trunk.

“There was literally downed trees in one of our major roads,” said Nicholas Legambi, who had driven in from Baltimore. “My power is still out. A lot of people are still without power today in the suburbs.”

The Potomac Electric Power Company, which serves Washington and surrounding counties, estimated it would take several days, and perhaps up to a week, before power is fully restored.

“As soon as the storm passed, we had crews starting to assess the damage,” Thomas H. Graham, Pepco’s president, said in a statement. “We'll continue conducting a comprehensive assessment, which we'll use to strategically deploy crews. We'll work full force and around the clock until every customer is restored.”

Washingtonians found life turned upside down by inconveniences including spoiled food and delayed trains. Thousands of commuters were stranded after Amtrak suspended service between Washington and Philadelphia on Friday night. Trains were still not running Saturday afternoon.

One in 3 Americans was in extreme heat Saturday in an area of nearly 600,000 square miles experiencing unusually warm weather.

Washington and its suburbs were the hardest hit as temperatures soared above 104 degrees Friday, breaking the record for all-time highs. Officials encouraged residents to visit cooling centers, including libraries and public pools. They cautioned that the elderly, the sick and the very young are especially vulnerable to extreme temperatures.

“I urge all district residents to look out after their neighbors,” said Chris Geldart, who directs the city's homeland security and emergency management agency, in a statement. “If you know of anyone in your neighborhood that might need assistance, please look in on them. This is especially important if you have elderly or disabled neighbors.”


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-dc-storms-13-dead-20120630,0,3915922.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-dc-storms-13-dead-20120630,0,3915922.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on July 01, 2012, 09:01:07 pm


Ancient Antarctic warmer and wetter

Home » News » Dunedin
By John Gibb on Sun, 1 Jul 2012
University of Otago | News: Dunedin

American research showing the ancient Antarctic was warmer and wetter than previously suspected highlights the value of the international Andrill scientific drilling project, University of Otago Prof Gary Wilson says.
The research shows the ancient Antarctic supported stunted trees and vegetation along its edges.

By examining the remnants of plant leaf wax found in sediment cores taken below the Ross Ice Shelf, scientists from the University of Southern California (USC), Louisiana State University and Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory determined summer temperatures along the Antarctic coast 15-20 million years ago were 11degC warmer than today.

Temperatures reached up to about 7degC, with several times more rain.

This occurred during a period of global warming in the middle Miocene epoch that coincided with increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Prof Wilson, who heads the University of Otago marine science department, said the outcomes showed the value of "the time and effort that it takes to get some of these answers".

Prof Wilson has been a member of the Andrill project's international scientific committee and has been closely involved in the project's work in the Antarctic.

"This is not about doing the easy work. It's about doing the important work," he said.

He was interested in studying previous global warming to better understand how the world's climate was likely to operate later this century.

At two sites in the Antarctic, in 2006 and 2007, Andrill, the Antarctic Drilling Project, gathered information about past periods of global warming and cooling.

International scientists, including from New Zealand and the United States, drilled through ice, sea water, sediment and rock to a depth exceeding 1200m, recovering a core record nearly 20 million years old.

Sarah Feakins, an assistant professor of earth sciences at USC, was the lead author of a paper on the research just published in Nature Geoscience.

 Scientists began to suspect that high-latitude temperatures during the middle Miocene were warmer than previously believed when Sophie Warny, co-author of the Nature Geoscience paper, and an assistant professor at Louisiana State University, discovered large quantities of pollen and algae in sediment cores taken in the Antarctic.

Plant fossils in the Antarctic are hard to find because massive ice sheets covering the landmass grind away the evidence.

Deep sea cores were ideal to look for "clues of past vegetation" because the fossils deposited were protected from ice sheets but were difficult to acquire and required international collaboration, Prof Warny said.

Leaf wax found in the sediment cores acts as a record of climate change by documenting details about the hydrogen isotope ratios of water the plant drank while it was alive.

- john.gibb@odt.co.nz

http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/215076/ancient-antarctic-warmer-and-wetter



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: ssweetpea on July 01, 2012, 10:01:14 pm
There are a number of tree species in the US that only seed or at least their seeds won't germinate unless they have a wild fire...

Same applies for many Australian tree species as well.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on July 08, 2012, 04:42:07 pm


OK, we've reduced too many greenhouse gas emissions
  • The 100-year global warming period has finished
  • we're back to beginning a new ICE AGE


Bring back the Orion Coal range and the open fires  (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/tickedoff.gif)

Warning as waterways freeze
Newstalk ZB
July 8, 2012, 8:19 am

As the cold snap continues, Queenstown's harbour master is warning people not to venture out onto frozen waterways.

Marty Black says ice has affected some areas of the region's lakes and there are also a number of frozen over ponds around the district.

He says parents need to remain vigilant around waterways .

"Supervised by adults may be ok, but youngsters on their own - definitely a no-no."

Marty Black says while ice could look thick enough to hold a lot of weight, that might not be the case in reality.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14161165/warning-as-waterways-freeze/



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 08, 2012, 05:11:37 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Heat wave: 13 dead, 3 million lose power in Mid-Atlantic storms

You know, its strange, but there were wildfires that spanned whole American counties in the 1800's.  Zane Grey wrote stories about them.
I guess they're inconvenient memories now.....  As is the fact that the population until recently, was a fraction of what it is now and people have expanded into danger areas - and also expanded their 'heat-sink' cities.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on July 08, 2012, 06:54:50 pm
I often wonder if the story about the Spanish galleon found in the Texan desert several miles inland from the gulf is true. No record of the storm that carried it there of course so it didn't happen.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 09, 2012, 02:17:38 pm
lol

Carbon tax cost added to family's funeral bill
Simon Benson The Daily Telegraph July 09, 2012 12:00AM

A GRIEVING family claims that a cemetery slapped them with a $55 carbon tax bill for burying a relative - saying "even the dead don't escape the carbon tax" - just days after the tax was introduced.

The outraged family complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, describing it as a "tax on the dying".

Erica Maliki said the Melbourne cemetery told her and two other relatives that a $55 charge would be applied to her father-in-law's burial due to the carbon tax.

The director of the Springvale Cemetery did not return calls despite several attempts to contact management since last Friday.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said it would be "reprehensible" if any cemetery took advantage of grieving families by misleading them over funeral expenses.

It comes as three companies were reprimanded by the consumer watchdog for cashing in on the carbon tax.

The ACCC said that it was investigating solar panel suppliers

Polaris Solar and ACT Renewable Energy for providing false information on the cost impacts of the tax, while bakery chain Brumby's was caught advising outlets to raise prices and blame the carbon tax.

While cemeteries are not liable entities under the carbon tax, the funeral industry has previously warned of indirect price rises for both burials as well as cremations through higher energy prices and councils passing on their carbon tax costs.

But it said the impacts should not be immediate nor any greater than any other business.

Ms Maliki, a mother and community worker, said her father-in-law died on June 30 - a day before the carbon tax came into operation - but was buried early last week.

She said when her grieving family was discussing with the cemetery management the cost of a $600 retaining wall for the plot, which she claimed was never installed, they were informed that the price per plot had risen by $55 due to the tax.

"I thought to myself what carbon could possibly be used by putting a man in a grave," Ms Maliki said.

"All they did was put the dirt back in. How can they charge us a carbon tax for burying someone?

"It is a tax for dying."

Son Zaid Maliki said he was shocked when the receptionist at the cemetery informed the family that the cost of his father's burial had gone up because of the tax.

He said the receptionist told his sister-in-law, " ... even the dead don't escape the carbon tax". "We are pretty upset ... that comment was a kick in the guts," he said.

The ACCC said it would be willing to investigate the Malikis' claims. The issue has also been brought to the attention of several Labor MPs.

The ACCC warned businesses generally that while they had a right to set their own prices, any claims made in relation to carbon tax must be "truthful and have a reasonable basis".

An ACCC spokesman confirmed that any questionable claims about carbon tax increases did not necessarily have to be made in writing or included on a bill and even verbal claims would be investigated.

NSW Funeral Directors Association spokesman John Kaus said: "We don't really see there will be a real impact on the funeral industry. We don't envisage an impact greater than any other business entity."

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt called for an immediate exemption for funerals.

"The carbon tax is not just a farce but an insult. It is a tax that now follows you to the grave," Mr Hunt said yesterday.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/carbon-tax-cost-added-to-familys-funeral-bill/story-e6freuy9-1226420545281


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Newtown-Fella on July 09, 2012, 02:40:05 pm
so when the body starts rotting decomposing in the ground along with the casket made out of wood chip and lots of glue plus the fabric lining the coffin and lets not for get the flowers and all the other stuff placed in the coffin start decomposing what happens to all those gases ?

dont they ooze out into the soil and rise up the 6 feet to the surface and enter the atmosphere ... ?

isnt that what causes the greenhouse effect ..... ?

seems to me that $55 is cheap as chips really compared to all the rest of the charges undertakers charge ....

thank god for cremations less harm done to the atmosphere and the ashes dont take up much room in ther ground  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: ssweetpea on July 12, 2012, 12:09:41 pm
I know I have commented on horticulturists pumping CO2 into greenhouses to increase plant growth before.

I just can't figure out which threat - I have searched.

...anyway this is a little more comformation the plants have a role in all this that will surprise some.



Carbon dioxide intake soars


PALOMA MIGONE

Last updated 06:42 12/07/2012



 Scientists have discovered that plants, trees and soil have abruptly increased their atmospheric carbon dioxide intake in the last 20 years.

The land biosphere was taking in about one billion tonnes of carbon per year since 1988, equal to about 10 per cent of the global fossil fuel emissions for 2010.

However, the sudden shift didn't mean people shouldn't worry about climate change in the future, Niwa atmospheric scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher said.

Without nature's new uptake regime, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere would probably have increased even more rapidly over the last two decades.

And if the change was temporary, reducing C02 levels in the future might get harder.

''At the end of the day there may have been this natural sink which has tremendously been to our advantage, but that has not stopped CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere,'' Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher said.

''It's not enough. CO2 is still increasing in the atmosphere at an alarming rate.''

The discovery was reported in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, written by an international team of scientists including Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher.

She said while the study showed there was a natural shift, scientists didn't know how it would change in the future.

''We don't yet know whether or not the natural process is going to cause a permanent shift towards this increase uptake or if that's something that could be reversed or something that can be enhanced.

''That's going to be the subject of the next series of studies on this topic.''

Scientists explored whether the increase could be explained by the EL Nino Southern Oscillation (Enso) - and it couldn't.

''We also tried volcanic activity. A little bit after the shift happened, in 1991, there was a big eruption, but the problem was that the shift happened too early,'' Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher said.

Kevin Tate, research associate at Landcare Research, said he was ''intrigued'' by the findings.

''One thought struck me and that is that perhaps to this point we have underestimated the size of the terrestrial sink, and this work may be correcting that.''

He believed a number of factors could have contributed to the increase, such as CO2 fertilisation, and afforestation and reforestation.

Some sources like deforestation and permafrost melting may have been overestimated previously as well.

''While this result is intriguing, it must be remembered that terrestrial sinks are finite, and there is a strong likelihood that the terrestrial sink will become increasingly saturated in coming decades.''

Researchers already knew that over half of the emissions of C02 from human activities were absorbed by the land biosphere and the oceans. But Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher said the ''natural sinks'' were difficult to quantify directly.

Using data from 1958 and mathematical techniques that haven't been widely used in the field, scientists took the amount of emissions and subtracted what was retained in the atmosphere and what the oceans took up, leaving the land component for the study.

They noticed the abrupt shift in 1988, when the intake of 0.3 billion tonnes of carbon per year surged to one billion tonnes.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was calculated from a global network of stations, including Niwa's sites in New Zealand and Antarctica.
 http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7265266/Carbon-dioxide-intake-soars (http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7265266/Carbon-dioxide-intake-soars)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 12, 2012, 02:35:30 pm
In other words, their computer models were wrong - Again!


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on July 12, 2012, 03:59:34 pm
You only have to read the harry_readme.txt file (from the Climategate files) to realise just how crappy the algorithms can be for the "human induced climate change" computer models.

The harry_readme.txt file also demonstrates just how doctored the algorithm is to produce the desired results, at least for the University of East Anglia's climate research unit and the hockey team in general. In fact it is far more condemning that the emails from either Climategate I or II. It's a huge indictment on the hockey team; the file just doesn't have the snappy dialogue of corruption that the emails have (like using "Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline" and being advocates for "the cause" or condemning those that don't commit to "the cause".)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 12, 2012, 07:08:18 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

Those bastard Romans and their climate changing chariots!


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 13, 2012, 05:38:26 pm

Wellington sea level rising fastest in NZ

By MATT STEWART - The Dominion Post | 7:10AM - Friday, 13 July 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202012/7272444s_13Jul12.jpg)
FUTURE SHOCK: A storm tide flood under the worst-case scenario of a sea level rise of 1.5 metres by 2115.

PARTS OF coastal Wellington could be drowned if doomsday climate change predictions from a new study pan out over the next 100 years.

Two reports issued yesterday by Greater Wellington regional council show Wellington's sea level is the fastest rising in New Zealand — made worse by seismic rumblings causing the city to sink 1.7mm a year since 2000.

Worst-case scenarios coupling massive sea level rise with intense storm floods show low-lying coastal parts of the Eastbourne bays, Petone, Pauatahanui, as well as the river mouths at Otaki, Hutt, Whakataki (near Castlepoint), and Waikanae and the lower Wairarapa valley, could be forever swamped if sea levels rose 1.5m by 2115.

Paekakariki, Raumati South and Te Kopi would also be jeopardised by severe erosion.

"We're starting to see potentially severe impacts in those areas," Greater Wellington senior hazards analyst Iain Dawe said.

Downtown Wellington would be spared permanent inundation because the city's seawall would protect it from erosion, and its stormwater system would gradually drain the flood.

The harbour also protects the city because wave run-up — where swells slop over the foreshore in a storm — was not as pronounced in the CBD as in places such as the south coast.

The reports urge immediate action and aim to help urban planners make building, road and infrastructure development decisions in low-lying coastal areas.

"We need integrated coastal management in the region with authorities working together to plan for natural disasters in the future," Dr Dawe said.

The research was done by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists.

The reports highlighted areas vulnerable to coastal flooding over the next 100 years.

Wellington Harbour had an average sea level rise of about 2mm a year over the past century. This was mainly due to climate change but was magnified by subsidence in the city over the past decade, caused by slow slips triggered by deep tectonic plate movements.

The region has "a more complicated spatial and temporal pattern of long- term relative sea level rise than other stable parts of New Zealand," the reports say.

Like land, the sea is not flat and has its own topography, which explains why Wellington could record a bigger rise than ports at Auckland, Dunedin and Christchurch. If the Wellington Fault ruptured, forecasts show Lower Hutt and Petone could subside by up to 1m.

Projections for century's end suggest the sea level in the Wellington region could rise by 0.8m by the 2090s or as high as 1.5m by 2115.

Storms could also get longer and stronger, increasing the likelihood of coastal flooding and erosion.


Sea-level variability and trends: Wellington Region (http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/About-GW-the-region/News-and-media-releases/2012-images/SeaLevelVariabilityandTrendsintheWellingtonRegion2012REPORT.pdf) (5.29MB PDF document)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington-central/7268184/Wellington-sea-level-rising-fastest-in-NZ (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington-central/7268184/Wellington-sea-level-rising-fastest-in-NZ)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 13, 2012, 07:28:33 pm
That would be modelled with one of NIWAs computers, right?  ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on July 13, 2012, 08:02:33 pm
I wonder if they factored in the 3m of uplift from the next quake. I just shake my head and grin whenever another one of these flights of fancy gets printed.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 13, 2012, 08:50:59 pm
Quote
The research was done by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists.

Wernt these the guys that moved their Karori weather station to a new location, thus giving global warming figures a boost?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 20, 2012, 09:25:53 pm

Greenland glacier loses ice

Greenland glacier loses ice island twice the size of Manhattan

By TRACY BRYANT - University of Delaware | 7:51pm - Monday, July 16, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202012/UD_PetermannGlacier_16Jul12.jpg)
Petermann Glacier connects the Greenland ice sheet to the Arctic Ocean. The vast flat expanse stretching
into the background is Petermann Glacier, well over one-third of which has now broken off.
 — Photo: David Riedel, British Columbia.


AN ICE ISLAND twice the size of Manhattan has broken off from Greenland’s Petermann Glacier, according to researchers at the University of Delaware and the Canadian Ice Service. The Petermann Glacier is one of the two largest glaciers left in Greenland connecting the great Greenland ice sheet with the ocean via a floating ice shelf.

Andreas Muenchow (http://udapps.nss.udel.edu/experts/326598426-Andreas_K_Muenchow), associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering in University of Delaware’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, reports the calving on July 16, 2012, in his “Icy Seas” blog (http://icyseas.org). Muenchow credits Trudy Wohleben of the Canadian Ice Service for first noticing the fracture.

The discovery was confirmed by reprocessing data taken by MODIS (http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

At 46 square miles (120 square km), this latest ice island is about half the size of the mega-calving that occurred from the same glacier two years ago. The 2010 chunk, also reported by Muenchow (http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2011/aug/greenland080610.html), was four times the size of Manhattan.

“While the size is not as spectacular as it was in 2010, the fact that it follows so closely to the 2010 event brings the glacier’s terminus to a location where it has not been for at least 150 years,” Muenchow says.

“The Greenland ice sheet as a whole is shrinking, melting and reducing in size as the result of globally changing air and ocean temperatures and associated changes in circulation patterns in both the ocean and atmosphere,” he notes.

Muenchow points out that the air around northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island has warmed by about 0.11 +/- 0.025 degrees Celsius per year since 1987.

“Northwest Greenland and northeast Canada are warming more than five times faster than the rest of the world,” Muenchow says, “but the observed warming is not proof that the diminishing ice shelf is caused by this, because air temperatures have little effect on this glacier; ocean temperatures do, and our ocean temperature time series are only five to eight years long — too short to establish a robust warming signal.”

The ocean and sea ice observing array that Muenchow and his research team installed in 2003 with U.S. National Science Foundation support in Nares Strait, the deep channel between Greenland and Canada, has recorded data from 2003 to 2009.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202012/UD_PetermanFjiord_16Jul12.jpg)
The Canadian Coast Guard Service vessel Henry Larsen is shown at the entrance of Petermann Fjord.
The glacier in the background is a tiny, tiny side arm that feeds into Petermann Glacier.
There are hundreds of these, University of Delaware's Andreas Muenchow says.
 — Photo: Helen Johnson, Oxford University.


The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Henry Larsen is scheduled to travel to Nares Strait and Petermann Fjord later this summer to recover moorings placed by UD in 2009. These mooring data, if recovered, will provide scientists with ocean current, temperature, salinity and ice thickness data at better than hourly intervals from 2009 through 2012. The period includes the passage of the 2010 ice island directly over the instruments.

According to Muenchow, this newest ice island will follow the path of the 2010 ice island, providing a slow-moving floating taxi for polar bears, seals and other marine life until it enters Nares Strait, the deep channel between northern Greenland and Canada, where it likely will get broken up.

“This is definitely déjà vu,” Muenchow says. “The first large pieces of the 2010 calving arrived last summer on the shores of Newfoundland, but there are still many large pieces scattered all along eastern Canada from Lancaster Sound in the high Arctic to Labrador to the south.”

Prior to 2010, the last time such a sizable ice island was born in the region was 50 years ago. In 1962, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, on the northern coast of Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, calved a 230-square-mile island.


http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/jul/glacier-071612.html (http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/jul/glacier-071612.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 20, 2012, 09:56:04 pm

Cracking up: Greenland’s glacier loss ‘disturbing’

By SETH BORENSTEIN - Associated Press Science Writer | 6:54pm - Wednesday, July 18, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202012/dh_707199982a_18jul12.jpg)
This satellite image from Monday shows a calving, crescent-shaped crack on the
Petermann Glacier in northwestern Greenland. — NASA/Associated Press.


WASHINGTON — An iceberg twice the size of Manhattan tore off one of Greenland’s largest glaciers, illustrating another dramatic change to the warming island.

For several years, scientists had been watching a long crack near the tip of the northerly Petermann Glacier. On Monday, NASA satellites showed it had broken completely, freeing an iceberg measuring 46 square miles.

A massive ice sheet covers about four-fifths of Greenland. Petermann Glacier is mostly on land, but a segment sticks out over water like a frozen tongue, and that’s where the break occurred.

The same glacier spawned an iceberg twice that size two years ago. Together, the breaks made a large change that’s got the attention of researchers.

“It’s dramatic. It’s disturbing,” said University of Delaware professor Andreas Muenchow, who was one of the first researchers to notice the break. “We have data for 150 years, and we see changes that we have not seen before.

“It’s one of the manifestations that Greenland is changing very fast,” he said.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202012/dh_707199982b_18jul12.jpg)
These 2010 and 2012 images show the formation of a crack in northwestern Greenland’s Petermann Glacier. On Monday,
a 46-square-mile iceberg tore off Petermann, which had spawned an iceberg twice that size in 2010.
 — NASA, University of Delaware/Associated Press.


Researchers suspect global warming is to blame but can’t prove it conclusively yet. Glaciers calve icebergs naturally, but what’s happened in the last three years to Petermann is unprecedented, Muenchow and other scientists say.

“This is not part of natural variations anymore,” said NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot, who camped on Petermann 10 years ago.

Ohio State University ice scientist Ian Howat said there is still a chance it could be normal calving, like losing a fingernail that has grown too long, but any further loss would show it’s not natural.

“We’re still in the phase of scratching our heads and figuring out how big a deal this really is,” Howatt said.

Many of Greenland’s southern glaciers have been melting at an unusually rapid pace. The Petermann break brings large ice loss much farther north than in the past, said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder.

If it continues, and more of the Petermann is lost, the melting would push up sea levels, he said. The ice lost so far already was floating, so the breaks don’t add to global sea levels.

Northern Greenland and Canada have been warming five times faster than the average global temperature, Muenchow said. Temperatures have increased there by about four degrees Fahrenheit in the last 30 years, Scambos said.

The new iceberg is likely to follow the path of the one in 2010, Muenchow said.

That iceberg broke apart into smaller icebergs headed north, then west and last year started landing in Newfoundland, he said.

It’s more than glaciers in Greenland that are melting. Scientists also reported this week that the Arctic had the largest sea ice loss on record for June.


http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20120719/NEWS06/707199982/Cracking-up:-Greenland’s-glacier-loss-‘disturbing’ (http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20120719/NEWS06/707199982/Cracking-up:-Greenland’s-glacier-loss-‘disturbing’)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 20, 2012, 09:56:26 pm

Wellington's climate shows warming trend

By JIM SALINGER - The Dominion Post | 7:04AM - Friday, 20 July 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202012/7314208s_20Jul12.jpg)
Wellington's climate records show a warming trend. — Professor Jim Salinger.

CLIMATE SCIENTISTS want to monitor how climate is changing and global warming progressing.

How they do this is particularly relevant as this week the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust is trying to persuade a judge (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/7287585/Climate-change-readings-inaccurate) in the High Court at Auckland to invalidate New Zealand's temperature records that have been compiled and collected by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and the former government agencies.

The coalition asserts the only way NIWA can claim a warming trend of one degree Celsius over the past century is through the use of inaccurate data.

Scientists are very interested in tracking climate as human factors will be the dominant influence on climate this century, save a meteor crashing into the planet. They are interested in adjusting the readings as though they are taken from one location in an area.

Wellington has one of the longest and best climate records of any region in New Zealand. This is why climate scientists carefully adjust temperature records.

When Sir James Hector, director of the Colonial Museum in Wellington in the 1860s, established a network to monitor New Zealand's weather and climate, the primary stations were established for weather forecasting, so the priority on permanency of location of a climate monitoring site for climate change was lower.

However, we are indebted to Sir James's Scottish heritage, as in setting up the network he bought precision thermometers which were housed in Stevenson screens to ensure consistency. Observations were taken under standard conditions, in his words "rigorous".

This has given us a legacy of climate monitoring under rigorously enforced methods with very reliable observations from the 19th century, the envy of many countries.

Climate scientists, in constructing a climate record over the past 150 years for Wellington, have to adjust the measurements taken for several reasons. The climate record has been taken from not one but five sites. The various sites are in the area of Wellington city. These sites have different temperature characteristics and may be cooler or warmer than other sites because of factors such as different elevation above sea level, or urban buildup. By adjusting temperature series, changes that are caused by climate, rather than the changes in site or environment, can be monitored.

THE diagram shows the record of mean temperature at the five sites: Knowles Observatory, halfway between the harbour and Tinakori hills; the Government Astronomical Observatory on a hill in the Bolton Street cemetery; Buckle Street; the Thorndon Esplanade; and then the current one at the top of the Botanic Gardens at Kelburn, 125 metres above sea level. This is the highest, and coolest, of all the Wellington city long-term climate recording sites.

To obtain a consistent record to monitor global warming locally, adjustments are made so that the readings reflect those at the current site.

To make these changes climate data are rigorously checked for any obvious errors. Adjustments are made by comparing a period of overlap between the old and new site, and comparing climate data before and after the site change with other neighbouring climate stations.

By these means adjustments to the mean temperature have been calculated for the Wellington sites. All earlier sites are warmer than the current well-ventilated Kelburn site by as much as 1C because they are much lower in altitude.

It is from Wellington's adjusted long-term record that true climate trends can be obtained. The long-term record from Wellington city thus calculated shows that there is year-to-year variability which can be as much as 1.5°C between years.

However, there is an overall clear trend with Wellington mean annual temperatures by 2011 1.3°C warmer than in the early 1860s.

This has been noticeable in the ability of gardeners to now grow frost-sensitive plants in warmer parts of Wellington. Both the shorter climate series from the single sites at Palmerston North and Westport show extremely similar trends and variations, with mean annual temperature increases of about 0.8°C from the 1930s to 2011.

Long-term monitoring is essential to detect small but significant changes in climate. As records are taken from several sites in a locality these require adjustments to reflect the true climate trends.

Wellington's temperature readings have been carefully adjusted with each site change to provide a consistent and reliable long-term record.

The excellent climate record from Wellington shows a clear warming trend over the past 150 years.


Jim Salinger is a visiting professor at Stanford University.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7311522/Wellingtons-climate-shows-warming-trend (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7311522/Wellingtons-climate-shows-warming-trend)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 20, 2012, 10:43:21 pm
Sorry - I switched off when I saw Jim Salingers name.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on July 20, 2012, 11:32:06 pm
Sorry - I switched off when I saw Jim Salingers name.
Ditto..


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on August 02, 2012, 02:05:53 pm
Another nail for the warmalists coffin.  Like their hocky stick, the figures they rely on and the predictions made with them that have failed to materialise.................

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7400061/Climate-change-science-tackled


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on August 02, 2012, 03:42:19 pm
Another nail for the warmalists coffin.  Like their hocky stick, the figures they rely on and the predictions made with them that have failed to materialise.................

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7400061/Climate-change-science-tackled

Wow! This exclamation is due to the fact that Fairfax even allowed an opinion piece opposing their bias.

I say this because Fairfax media have a vested interest in pushing the warmist hyperbole being significant financial partners to Earth Hour (this is why Fairfax media hype Earth Hour so much.) Fairfax owns roughly one third of Earth Hour (http://boy-on-a-bike.blogspot.ca/2011/12/untangling-ownership-of-earthhour.html#!/2011/12/untangling-ownership-of-earthhour.html)

Dr David Evans used to be a believer and promoter of the warmist hyperbole. That he has joined the sceptic camp has proved irksome to true believers. Not that he is alone. Sure many have gone from the Hockey Team to luke warm (e.g. Dr Judith Curry) rather than to outright sceptism, but to find any scientist going from sceptic to believer is as rare as hen's teeth.

I suspect that is why the media make such a fuss over Professor Muller with his media invented conversion from sceptic to believer; trying to find people who go the other way is quite hard that they have to create them.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 03, 2012, 05:12:41 pm

Southern climate once like Queensland

By MATT STEWART - Fairfax NZ News | 5:00AM - Thursday, 02 August 2012

NEW ZEALAND once had a climate like Queensland, at a time when palm trees swayed in the balmy subtropical rainforests of Antarctica, new research shows.

A global team of scientists, who left from Wellington, analysed Antarctic pollen and spores, opening a window on the ancient climate of the continent about 52 million years ago, which showed humid weather similar to modern coastal Queensland.

Mean summer temperatures ranged between 20 and 27 degrees Celsius and frost-sensitive vegetation abounded, according to the study, which drilled sub-seabed rock samples from off the coast of what is now known as Wilkes Land, due south of Australia.

Even by the poles, scientists found the ‘Greenhouse' Eocene epoch — 55 to 48 million years ago — was very warm, leading to the growth of "highly diverse, near-tropical forests".

The research, published in the science journal Nature this week, confirmed what many scientists suspected — that Antarctica once boasted an enviable summer.

New Zealand's climate would have been similar during the epoch and there may also have been land mammals, like possums, on Antarctica, said Dr Ian Raine, team researcher and a micro-paleontologist at GNS Science in Lower Hutt.

Apart from recurring ice ages, Dr Raine said, Antarctica had been frozen for just a fraction of its history — the latest freeze starting about 35 million years ago.

The study showed winter temperatures on the Wilkes Land coast during the epoch topped 10°C, despite three months of polar blackness.

But the continental interior was noticeably cooler, with a climate supporting temperate southern beech rainforests similar to those found in the South Island today.

The finding highlights extreme contrasts between modern and ancient climates.

The "greenhouse" epoch was the warmest time in the past 66 million years and showed temperature gradients from the pole to the equator were less pronounced than they are now, Dr Raine said.

The study sounds a warning for climate change, with scientists forecasting Earth could again heat up in a few hundred years as fossil fuel burning accelerates carbon dioxide (CO²) to the levels which allowed the lush forests to thrive near the South Pole.

Back then atmospheric CO² concentrations were more than twice as high as today. "If the current CO² emissions continue unabated due to the burning of fossil fuels, CO² concentrations in the atmosphere, as they existed in the distant past, are likely to be achieved within a few hundred years,” lead researcher Professor Jorg Pross said.

“By studying naturally occurring climate warming periods in the geological past, our knowledge of the mechanisms and processes in the climate system increases. This contributes enormously to improving our understanding of current human-induced global warming.”


http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7400971/Southern-climate-once-like-Queensland (http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7400971/Southern-climate-once-like-Queensland)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 03, 2012, 05:18:23 pm

Wild US weather explained

Fairfax NZ News | 12:01PM - Thursday, 02 August 2012

THE heatwaves, wildfires, and droughts scorching the United States may not just be a fluke.

According to scientists from the UN's climate body, the freak weather across America is a direct result of climate change.

In the first congressional hearing on climate science in more than two years, scientists from the ICPP told lawmakers that man-made climate change was one of the culprits behind the streak of strange weather seen all around the country lately.

"It is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disaster is clear," Christopher Field, a leading ICPP scientist, told lawmakers.

Climate experts at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing pointed to the number of natural disasters the US has had lately, the Guardian recaps: In 2011, there were 14 major, billion-dollar weather events, well surpassing the previous record of nine.

The last time an ICPP scientist appeared before the committee was in February 2009, but legislative action on climate change was quickly halted by the partisan divide on the issue.

Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, a leading sceptic of climate change, protested the hearing, telling the committee: "The global warming movement has completely collapsed."

Indeed, Barack Obama's climate change agenda was left in the dust near the beginning of his presidency. But environmental advocates hope to revitalise the movement, Bloomberg reports.

"The whole world is debating global warming," said Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who has made something of a mission out of refuting Inhofe's claims. "We can't run away from the issue. We need to put it front and centre."


http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7400175/Wild-US-weather-explained (http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7400175/Wild-US-weather-explained)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 03, 2012, 05:30:42 pm

Richard Muller's volte face on climate change is good for science (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/richard-muller-climate-change-good-science)

          (The Guardian — July 31, 2012)



Richard Muller: ‘Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause’ Of Climate Change (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/richard-muller-climate-change-humans-koch_n_1715887.html)

          (The Huffington Post — July 29, 2012)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 04, 2012, 01:02:45 am

From the Los Angeles Times....

Conversion of climate change skeptic not likely to sway GOP

By DAVID HORSEY | 12:38AM - Thursday, August 02, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_20120802a_02aug12.jpg)
Republicans heads are buried in the climate change sand. — Cartoon: David Horsey/Los Angeles Times/August 02, 2012.

ARE TWO OF the left’s most useful villains, Charles and David Koch (http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/david-koch-PEBSL00422.topic), not quite as unredeemable as liberals believe? Could it be they might change their minds about climate change and admit that it is real?

UC Berkeley (http://www.latimes.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/university-of-california-berkeley-OREDU00000197.topic) physics professor Richard A. Muller says that, after years of paying for studies by global warming skeptics, the Koch brothers honestly want to get the science clarified. They helped fund Muller who, only three years ago, doubted that the Earth was heating up to dangerous levels due to human activity. Now, with his Koch-funded research complete, he has reversed himself.

In a column published in the New York Times, Muller wrote, “Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

Muller can now be welcomed into the enormous club of scientists who have, for years, been warning about this impending threat to life as we have known it on this planet. The question is whether his conversion can bring along any conservative politicians, such as most of the Republicans in Congress. Scientific research is unlikely to convince them (Why should facts sway them now if they have resisted the truth up to this point?). But Republicans might possibly reassess if the word comes down from two of their biggest financial backers, the Koch brothers.

Through their super PAC, Americans for Prosperity (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/americans-for-prosperity-ORCIG0000042.topic), the Kochs have dumped a mountain of money into Republican campaigns. They were the sugar daddies behind Herman Cain (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/herman-cain-PEPLT00008439.topic)’s curious run for president and now are doing their best to elect Mitt Romney (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/mitt-romney-PEPLT007376.topic). When these libertarian billionaires snap their fingers, Republicans rush to do their bidding.

Muller told U.S. News & World Report blogger Elizabeth Flock that the Kochs do not match the caricature liberals draw of them. "People think they can look into the minds of Charles and David Koch," Muller said to Flock. "But I have had conversations with them where they are interested in the science and the proof, so that these issues [of climate change] would be resolved."

I will believe it when I see it.

Sure, it is entirely possible that the Kochs do accept Muller’s findings. There are probably plenty of people like them at the highest levels of the oil and coal industries who already believe climate change is real and is caused by CO² emissions from human activities. These folks are not dummies, after all. But they are also the people who put the special in special interests. Petrochemical kings like the Kochs might understand that the burning of fossil fuels is pushing humanity toward a precipice, yet not really give a damn. When fortunes are at stake and economic power is on the line, quarterly profits invariably outweigh the fate of future generations.

It is no longer necessary to accept abstract science to believe in climate change. The severe drought striking much of the West, Midwest and South presents much more tangible and alarming evidence. Climatologists say drought may be the new normal in those regions. But will the many Republican politicians from those parts of the country stop denying the reality of climate change? Will they spring into action to help their constituents living on that drying land?

Nope, they will do nothing — unless the money men of industry snap their fingers and say jump.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-climate-change-skeptic-20120802,0,5819816.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-climate-change-skeptic-20120802,0,5819816.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on August 04, 2012, 01:39:27 pm
More sophistry, is the author of that tract claiming that every year and decade should be exactly the same as the previous ones? It's commonly held that the 20th century was an unusually wet period for the mid west and the climate and rainfall has always been notoriously fickle. What do you think caused the Anastasi to abandon their cliff cities? it was good old climate change with no human trigger or artificial guilt complex attached to it.
There are more people living and farming in the midwest now than there ever were in the entire history of the North American continent and they're there due to.... climate change, that's right folks, the climate got a bit wetter for a while there over the last century or so and humans being what they are soon took advantage of it. The trouble is that when it flips back to the bad old climate that it had before, they all begin to cry about how unfair it is and being American they begin to cast about looking for someone to blame.
That'll be you and me being accused by their useful idiots.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on August 04, 2012, 03:05:03 pm
1. Muller never converted to anything. The closest he came to sceptism was claiming that he could no longer trust Michael Mann's work.

2. The 1930s were far worse in America than the present. It was known as the dustbowl.

I suggest you do some research KTJ before posting.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on August 04, 2012, 03:11:22 pm
Muller's conversion to warmism is identical to the Pope converting to Catholicism.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 07, 2012, 12:13:15 am

New study links current events in weather to climate change

By SETH BORENSTEIN - Associated Press Science Writer | 8:20PM - Saturday August 04, 2012

WASHINGTON — The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can’t be anything but man-made global warming, says a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist.

The research by a man often called the “godfather of global warming” says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by NASA scientist James Hansen. He says that statistically what’s happening is not random or normal but pure and simple climate change.

“This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,” Hansen told the Associated Press in an interview.

Hansen is a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. But he also is a strident activist who has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate-change skeptics.

However, several climate scientists praised the new work.

In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen’s study — based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling — blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:

Last year’s devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.

The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.

The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.

The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States this year. But Hansen believes this, too, is another prime example of global warming at its worst.

The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple math instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of atmospheric physics. It also doesn’t bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.

The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop hemming and hawing, Hansen said.

“This is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening,” he said.

Scientists generally have responded that it’s impossible to say whether single events are caused by global warming because of the influence of natural weather variability.

However, that position has been shifting in recent months, as other studies, too, have concluded climate change is happening right before our eyes.

Hansen hopes his new study will shift people’s thinking about climate change and goad governments into action. He wrote an op-ed piece that appeared online Friday in the Washington Post.

“There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time,” he wrote.

The science in Hansen’s study is excellent “and reframes the question,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.

“Rather than say, ‘Is this because of climate change?’ That’s the wrong question. What you can say is, ‘How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?’ It’s so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming,” Weaver said.

For years, scientists have run complex computer models using combinations of various factors to see how likely a weather event would happen without global warming and with it. About 25 different aspects of climate change have been formally attributed to man-made greenhouse gases in dozens of formal studies. But these are generally broad and nonspecific, such as more heat waves in some regions and heavy rainfall in others.

Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen’s paper an important one that helps communicate the problem.

But there is bound to be continued disagreement. Previous studies had been unable to link the two, and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.

White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper’s findings in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can’t blame single events on global warming: “This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are more than 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful.”

Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville said Hansen shouldn’t have compared recent years to the 1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for extremes.

But Derek Arndt, director of climate monitoring for the federal government’s National Climatic Data Center, said that range is a fair one and often used because it is the “golden era” for good statistics.

Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, called Hansen’s study “an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically based arguments.”

In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse-gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.

Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.

And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.

Science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado said Hansen clearly doesn’t understand social science, thinking a study like his could spur action. Just because something ought to happen doesn’t mean it will, he said.

In an email, he wrote: “Hansen is pursuing a deeply flawed model of policy change, one that will prove ineffectual and with its most lasting consequence a further politicization of climate science (if that is possible!).”


http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20120805/NEWS03/708059895/New-study-links-current-events-in-weather-to-climate-change (http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20120805/NEWS03/708059895/New-study-links-current-events-in-weather-to-climate-change)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on August 07, 2012, 12:49:42 am
The evidence against Ewen Macdonald was more compelling and yet you swear he's innocent..
Are all of your personalities in a constant state of conflict?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 07, 2012, 06:24:24 pm

Climate sceptics fail in NIWA case

By TREVOR QUINN - Fairfax NZ News | 3:22PM - Friday, 07 September 2012

A GROUP of climate change sceptics has failed in its case against the National Institute for Atmospheric and Water Research (NIWA) who they brought to court over what they said was inaccurate temperature recordings.

The New Zealand Climate Education Trust — a branch of the NZ Climate Science Coalition — challenged NIWA figures, in the High Court at Auckland earlier this year, which showed a rise in temperatures in New Zealand of 1 degree Celcius over the past 100 years.

The group said the temperature increase of 1°C was significantly higher than global warming figures around the world and almost 50 per cent above the global average.

In the High Court judgement, released today, Justice Geoffrey Venning ruled that the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust had not been successful in any of the challenges they brought against NIWA.

Justice Venning also decided that NIWA's cost should be paid by the trust and he said that if an agreement on the costs could not be reached he would make another ruling at a later stage.

During the hearing in July the trust said they believed there had been no warming or a trivial warming of around 0.2°C. The trust also said that NIWA's calculating procedures were unscientific and unreliable.

In the judgement Justice Venning said he thought the court should be cautious about making judgements based on decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body such as NIWA.

He said NIWA acted "within its own sphere of expertise".

Justice Venning said unless the trust could point to some defect in NIWA's decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle or in law the court could not intervene.

"This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion."

The judge also said that he thought the court should be cautious about making judgements based on decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7634556/Climate-sceptics-fail-in-Niwa-case (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7634556/Climate-sceptics-fail-in-Niwa-case)



Another related thread posted to this General Forum messageboard @ XNC2....

While the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers” fiddle, Rome burns! (http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,6068.0.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on September 08, 2012, 11:41:15 am
Errrm.......Yes?
So the court states that Niwa operates by its own rules and that this court is not going to get involved in an arguement between scientists?

About the only contentious thing there, is I felt he could have ordered both parties pay their own costs.  After all, niwa has a bottomless money-pit in the form of the government................


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 12, 2012, 11:32:07 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Colomnists%20Portraits/NZHerald_BrianRudman.gif)

One small word, one giant setback for denial

Brian Rudman on National Issues

The New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz) | 5:30AM - Wednesday, September 12, 2012

UNLIKE bloggers and tweeters, judges can't just let fly with a string of expletives. But they do have a quiver of high-sounding Latinisms up their sleeves to slip into a judgment when their exasperation meter flies into the red zone.

Words like prolix, which sounds so much more polite than declaring the submission just waded through was tediously prolonged, long-winded, palaverous, rambling and/or waffling.

For Justice Geoffrey Venning, the original statements of claim by the climate change deniers, accusing the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd of cooking the books over atmospheric warming was so, shall we say, prolix, that he couldn't help declaring as much in page two of his recent decision, throwing the claim out of court and ordering the flat-earthers of the NZ Climate Science Coalition to pay NIWA its costs, reported to be "well over $100,000".

Even more damaging to the credibility of the NZCSC, the judge dismissed much of the "expert evidence" of two of the lobby group's three main witnesses, in particular co-founder Terry Dunleavy, "retired journalist" and former National Party candidate.

The judge ruled that for Mr Dunleavy's evidence to be admissible, he would have to be "an expert in the particular field of the science of meteorology and/or climate. He is not. He has no applicable qualifications. His interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert". Worse, parts of his evidence were not "impartial".

Mr Dunleavy and his fellow travellers went to court two years ago, alleging that, in effect, the Government's climate institute had acted fraudulently in preparing documentation to show that New Zealand's temperature had warmed by about 1°C in the past 100 years.

Justice Venning said the court should be cautious about interfering with the conclusions made by specialist bodies within its own sphere of influence and that unless the NZCSC "can point to some defect in NIWA's decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle and in law this court will not intervene". It was not for the court "to determine or resolve scientific questions".

His conclusion was that Niwa's procedure "was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology" and was "peer reviewed".

Of course peer review is something the flat-earthers will never risk for their own claims. For years the deniers have been challenged to publish their arguments in a reputable scientific journal and allow it to be subjected to the examination of recognised experts in the field. Of course, to the deniers, the world's climate experts are all part of some global United Nations-backed conspiracy promoting "the lie" of man-made global warming. Just why they conspire is still to be explained.

For Mr Dunleavy, and NZCSC co-founder Professor Bob Carter, this defeat won't help their reputations in their parallel roles at the top of the International Climate Science Coalition.

The retired journalist is labelled "strategic director and founding chairman" of this world body and Professor Carter, who failed to convince Justice Venning in the NIWA case, is chief science adviser.

A taste of Mr Dunleavy's impartiality is on show in a YouTube clip of him addressing the second International Conference on Climate Change, run by the Heartland Institute in New York, March 2009. They were there, he declares, "to save the planet ... from being swamped by a tsunami of false propaganda about a catastrophe caused by we humans emitting a little too much of a colourless, odourless gas, carbon dioxide". The lies were being preached by "zealots" working under the auspices of the "United Nations".

The only light relief I could find regarding the Heartland Institute is that its headquarters are on South Wacker Drive, Chicago. But if our wackos were hoping to touch up their Wacker Drive mates for a loan to pay their court costs, they might be in for a surprise.

A misjudged billboard campaign by the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute this year resulted in a mass exodus of corporate donors. In May, Heartland erected billboards across Chicago with huge mugshots of notorious criminals, the Unabomber and cult leader and murderer Charles Manson, with the text "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"

The signs were removed within 24 hours but not before the departure of many supporters and several larger donors. Which suggests that Mr Dunleavy's best bet might be hoping he can persuade rich supporters like expat millionaire Alan Gibbs, listed No.2 on the ICSC advisory board, to come to the party.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10833373 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10833373)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: ssweetpea on September 17, 2012, 10:07:33 am

Editorial: Judge's ruling in climate case refreshing


5:29 AM Monday Sep 17, 2012

Scathing judgment backing Niwa represents damning of sceptics' crusade.

 
A year ago, James Hansen, one of the world's top climate scientists, conceded that climate sceptics were winning the argument with the public over global warming. This, he said, was occurring even as climate science itself was showing ever more clearly that the Earth was in increasing danger from rising temperatures.
 
Part of the reason for this outcome is the professional communications approach employed by the climate sceptics. Scientists have not been able to compete with this. One of the main thrusts of this strategy has been to allege that scientists have behaved without integrity or honesty. It is in this context that a recent High Court judgment has considerable importance.
 
The case saw a branch of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, a group of sceptics, seeking to have temperatures collected by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research declared invalid.
 
It could hardly have failed more comprehensively.
 
Justice Geoffrey Venning ruled that the coalition had not succeeded in any of its challenges against Niwa, and said it must pay the crown research institute's costs.

 The coalition alleged that the method used to collect national temperature records, which show a national warming trend of almost one degree Celsius in the past century, almost 50 per cent above the global average, had been unscientific. That had created an unrealistic and unreliable indication of climate warming, it said.
 
If the coalition had managed to discredit Niwa's methods, it would also have discredited the evidence for climate change, and the part played by human activities.
 
But Justice Venning said Niwa had applied "internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology" and, as such, did not breach any obligation it may have had to pursue excellence.
 
The coalition was also effectively branded as amateurish. The evidence of one coalition member was dismissed in large part by Justice Venning because "he has no applicable qualifications. His interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert". This represented a refreshing approach from Justice Venning. Too often, the claims of unqualified people have been able to cast doubt on the view of the majority of active climate scientists who are certain human industry is contributing to global warming.
 
As has happened before, climate sceptics have reacted by seeking to shift the goalposts.
 
In an Opinion article in this newspaper, Auckland University associate professor Chris de Freitas played down the importance of any court ruling, saying it was no substitute for the insufficient number of attempts globally "to reassess quantitatively the nature and reliability of homogeneity adjustments to complete national sets".
 
That oddly overlooked the fact that the coalition had chosen the High Court as a battleground, thereby attaching its own importance to it. It also ignored the scathing nature of the judgment.
 
So severe was this that it rendered the case outlandish and raised questions about how it could have occupied so much of the court's time. Justice Venning's judgment was a strong riposte to the climate sceptics' ongoing claims of a conspiracy by scientists.
 
Many inquiries by British and American government agencies and independent panels have previously upheld the integrity and honesty of the scientists. This ruling reinforced that and represented a damning of the climate sceptics' case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10834470 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10834470)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 05, 2012, 03:12:04 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions

An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant
global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire
and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.


By MONTE MORIN | 4:46PM - Wednesday, October 03, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2012oct04z.jpg)
The study's conclusions were based on an analysis of ice core samples from Greenland. — Photo: John McConnico/Associated Press.

CENTURIES before the Industrial Revolution or the recognition of global warming, the ancient Roman and Chinese empires were already producing powerful greenhouse gases through their daily toil, according to a new study.

The burning of plant matter to cook food, clear cropland and process metals released millions of tons of methane gas into the atmosphere each year during several periods of pre-industrial history, according to the study, published Thursday in the journal Nature.

Although the quantity of methane produced back then pales in comparison with the emissions released today — the total amount is roughly 70 times greater now — the findings suggest that man's footprint on the climate is larger than previously realized. Until now, it was assumed by scientists that human activity began increasing greenhouse gas levels only after the year 1750.

"The quantities are much smaller, because there were fewer people on Earth," said study leader Celia Sapart, an atmospheric chemist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "But the amount of methane emitted per person was significant."

Sapart's conclusions were based on an analysis of ice core samples from Greenland. The layered ice columns, which date back 2,000 years, contain tiny air bubbles from different periods of history, and provide scientists with a view into the atmosphere's changing chemistry.

The first period of methane production captured in the ice cores — roughly from the years AD 1 to 300 — encompassed the tail ends of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, when charcoal was the preferred form of fuel. The second period of elevated methane emissions occurred during what's known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly, from roughly 800 to 1200, and a third was found during the Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1600.

Methane is one of a few gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. It forms naturally when plant and animal matter decomposes in airless environments, and it's also released when vegetation burns. However, when methane is produced by burning, it contains heavier carbon isotopes than methane generated through decomposition.

By using a mass spectrometer to study the air trapped in the ice cores, Sapart and her colleagues were able to determine the ratio of methane produced by burning and by decomposition. The study notes that not all cases of burned vegetation were the result of human activity; forest fires, particularly in times of drought, would also contribute to so-called pyrogenic methane production. The research team used mathematical models to account for this naturally burning vegetation and other fluctuations in atmospheric methane content.

"The results show that between 100 BC and AD 1600, human activity may have been responsible for roughly 20-30% of the total pyrogenic methane emissions," the authors wrote.

The research appeared to be the result of very careful and very difficult examination of carbon isotopes and could impact global warming estimates for the pre-industrial period, according to Ed Dlugokencky, a methane expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

"The study gives further evidence for a contribution to the global methane burden from anthropogenic sources," said Dlugokencky, who was not involved in the study.

Sapart said that though the study helped answer questions about the past, there were still plenty that remained about the future. Of particular concern is the melting of permafrost in the Arctic regions, where methane trapped in the frozen earth and ice is allowed to escape into the atmosphere.

"To date, we do not know how natural methane sources will evolve together with human-induced climate change, but it is likely those natural sources will increase," she said.


______________________________________

Related news story:

The curious blindness of climate deniers (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-curious-blindness-of-climate-deniers-20120917,0,811243.story)

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-humans-climate-change-20121004,0,2962982.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-humans-climate-change-20121004,0,2962982.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on October 05, 2012, 04:43:27 pm
Ho-Hum.

Bored!  Bored! - Very bored!

Do a google on "Dan Turner climate" and the usual long list of spittle-spraying diatribes on human induced climate change shows up.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 30, 2012, 05:50:52 pm

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/infographics/182/HurricaneLowerManhattan.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/SCCZEN_AP121030143234_460x230.jpg) (http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/SCCZEN_AP121030161802_460x230.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 30, 2012, 05:51:07 pm

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/infographics/182/HurricaneLowerManhattan.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/SCCZEN_AP121030143234_460x230.jpg) (http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/SCCZEN_AP121030161802_460x230.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 30, 2012, 06:04:05 pm

Here are some more global-warming/climate-change "hoax" photographs....

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030143025_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030130657_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030142732_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030141836_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030143017_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030141431_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030143220_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030143508_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030143422_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030143432_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030083531_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030084950_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030104823_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030105331_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030115440_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030121836_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030122241_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030130111_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030132223_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030132422_620x413.jpg)

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121030133830_620x413.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on October 31, 2012, 12:10:27 pm


Some more reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”

http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,12423.0.html




Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 31, 2012, 04:05:46 pm

(http://static.stuff.co.nz/1351598614/963/7884963.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 31, 2012, 04:11:01 pm

(http://static.stuff.co.nz/1351624125/352/7886352.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 01, 2012, 01:41:19 pm

What we sow is what we reap

Letters to the Editor - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 01 November 2012

(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201244/AP121029090309_620x413.jpg)

THE HORROR of the Frankenstein hurricane with the benign nickname, Sandy, which this week kicked in the United States' front door, won't be lost on its victims.

It will be lost on the deaf and blind corporate establishment, wedded only to profit, which refuses to acknowledge its major role in atmospheric change and fights regulation. This Frankenstorm is, in a sense, “going back to mother”.

In the past 30 years, damaging weather events in the US have increased five times over. What we sow is what we reap, and unless the blind greed of corporate capitalism is reined in, destructive environmental events such as Sandy will increase in frequency and severity, finally engulfing all of us in a holocaust of our own making.

ALAN RHODES
Napier


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/letters-to-the-editor/7892327/Letter-What-we-sow-is-what-we-reap (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/letters-to-the-editor/7892327/Letter-What-we-sow-is-what-we-reap)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 01, 2012, 02:52:04 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2012oct31axl.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 02, 2012, 11:33:44 am

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix/boats_on_tracks.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 02, 2012, 01:50:21 pm

(http://static.stuff.co.nz/1351802814/215/7898215.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 06, 2012, 01:04:51 pm

(http://images.theage.com.au/2012/11/05/3770056/port-Bruce_Petty.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on November 10, 2012, 06:37:13 am
Back in the superstitious days every bad weather event was blamed on witches.

In the modern 21st century nothing much has changed. We still scapegoat and cannot accept bad weather as bad weather. Loonies still have to blame someone for it.

The Aztecs thought they could control the climate by physically taking people's hearts. These days our leaders believe we can control the climate by taking away people's green bits of paper.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on November 10, 2012, 08:33:50 am

Greens blast Government for backing out of Kyoto deal
Jacqui Stanford, Newstalk ZB November 10, 2012, 6:41 am

...Dr Graham says it means a lot of hot air at talks, but no legally binding measures to reduce emissions. ...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/15346599/greens-blast-government-for-backing-out-of-kyoto-deal/

o goody!

 does this mean us domestic energy users are going to get a refund of the carbon tax we have already paid on electricity and fuel? 

yeahbut

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/carbon-trading/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501831&objectid=10824448




Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 28, 2012, 04:27:25 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Despite storms and floods, humans willingly ignore global warming

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Tuesday, November 27, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2012nov27a.jpg)
Humanity is oblivious to climate change warnings. — Cartoon: David Horsey/Los Angeles Times/November 27, 2012.

WHAT DO Manhattan and Miami have in common with ancient Pompeii? They are doomed places where the residents cannot imagine that the good times will ever end.

Superstorm Sandy got our attention — like Mike Tyson walking into the house and punching our dog. And the certainty that more freakish, savage storms will pay a visit has made it tough for global-warming deniers to keep denying. But denial is not as tough to reckon with as obliviousness. Being oblivious to approaching doom is a consistent human trait. We are a hopeful, gullible and greedy species. Most of us imagine we can be the last one out of the burning casino with hundred-dollar bills stuffed in every pocket.

Last week, PBS broadcast Ken Burns' new documentary, about the 1930s Dust Bowl, and provided a reminder of humanity’s unwillingness to acknowledge that what makes us rich today may kill us tomorrow. In the opening decades of the 20th century, real estate hucksters, railroad tycoons and even government agencies persuaded thousands of dirt-poor farmers to come to the dry and windy center of the Great Plains, plow up millions of acres of ancient grasslands and plant wheat.

There were several reasons this was a bad idea, but for a couple of unusually wet decades, bumper crops were the norm. Then, in the 1930s, inevitable drought returned. The land dried up and, quite literally, blew away in enormous black clouds that killed crops, livestock, children, old people and dreams. It was the worst man-made environmental disaster in American history.

Now, as we grow more aware that we face the worst man-made environmental disaster in the history of the world, we are proving to be no more wise than the imprudent farmers who tore up the buffalo grass. Rather than taking serious steps to curb the carbon emissions that are driving up temperatures everywhere, rather than being shocked by the rapid melting of the polar ice packs and mountain glaciers, rather than seeing drought-driven wildfires and monster storms as portents of things to come, we are redoubling our efforts to extract every last ounce of fuel from the dirtiest depths of the land.

The oil boom in North Dakota is turning that sparsely populated state into an American Arabia. Even bigger is the oil bonanza in western Canada. According to a Los Angeles Times report (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/10/business/la-fi-canada-recruit-20121111), recruiters from Alberta are scouring California and other states hoping to lure tens of thousands of workers north to the oil fields.

In a time of high unemployment and high gas prices, this seems like happy, hopeful news. But it is hope built on sand — the vast deposits of oil sands that give up their black gold only through a process that requires a bottomless supply of water and poses huge environmental risks. The worst comes after the oil is extracted. That is when we burn it all up in our cars and factories and send the resulting emissions into the atmosphere.

On Sunday, the New York Times published a set of dramatic graphics showing how several coastal cities will be affected by rising sea levels that will be one result of global warming. Scientists say if immediate, dramatic measures are taken to reduce emissions, the seas may rise just five feet. New York City might be able to cope by erecting barriers, but Miami Beach would disappear. If the world hits just the modest emissions targets that have already been set, but largely ignored, sea level will go up twelve feet. That means all that will be left of Miami is a scattering of islands, while nearly a quarter of New York goes underwater.

But if we continue full speed ahead, drilling, fracking and burning it all up, then the coasts will see a 25-foot rise that swamps all of south Florida; all of Norfolk, Virginia; big swaths of New York and Boston; every beach in California and, strangely enough, more than 60% of Sacramento.

Of course, this is all many decades in the future, our legacy to future generations. For now, in between the storms and wildfires, we will remain oblivious. After all, until the end actually came, Pompeii was a pleasant town with a fine mountain view.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-global-warming-20121126,0,3924115.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-global-warming-20121126,0,3924115.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 29, 2012, 12:28:40 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Ocean acidification is killing sea life, and we are the culprits

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:05AM - Wednesday, November 28, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2012nov28a.jpg)
Ocean acidification threatens sea life and the global food chain. — Cartoon: David Horsey/Los Angeles Times/November 28, 2012.

IF THE prospect of coastal cities sinking into the sea 100 years from now does not motivate Americans to do something dramatic to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there is something happening at this very moment that should be setting off sirens. Rising CO2 levels are making the oceans more acidic and that change in the chemistry of the seas is disrupting the food chain that ends with you and me.

For years, as scientists watched the carbon emissions from our tailpipes and smokestacks spew into the sky and goose temperatures higher, there was one mitigating factor that was keeping a brake on global warming: The oceans were absorbing a whole lot of that CO2.

Now, though, it turns out that is not such a blessing. Carbon dioxide welling up from the cold, deep ocean is shifting the pH balance in shallower coastal waters. That rise in acidity is affecting organisms that depend on calcium carbonate to form protective shells and exoskeletons — creatures such as crabs and oysters and clams, as well as coral reefs that provide crucial habitat for many kinds of sea life.

Acidification dissolves shells and coral. There is evidence it also screws up the instinctual guidance systems of at least some types of fish, making them unable to discern the difference between predators and prey. Scientists suspected something bad like this might happen as the oceans grew more sour, but they did not expect it to be happening already.

Researchers are finding that, in several locales, the shells of tiny creatures called pteropods are being thinned and broken down by acidity. People do not eat pteropods, but plenty of fish do. They supply 50% of the diet of pink salmon, and people do eat salmon. It is not hard to understand the biology: If pteropods disappear, salmon and other fish get scarce.

In an interview (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019765681_pteropods26m.html) with the Seattle Times, Gretchen Hofmann, a biologist at UC Santa Barbara stressed how crucial little creatures like pteropods are in maintaining the food chain. “They’re small but carry an enormous amount of nutrition and are eaten even by very big fish. If you’re in the Antarctic and see a beautiful emperor penguin, it exists by eating fish under the sea ice. And those fish eat pteropods.”

Moved to action by a massive die-off of oyster larvae that was traced to acidification, Washington became the first state to establish a blue-ribbon panel to come up with a plan to cope with ocean acidification. The panel released its findings on Tuesday and recommended 42 steps toward adaptation, remediation, monitoring and education.

For now, such efforts may help protect the seafood industry that brings $1.7 billion annually to Washington, but one state cannot fix this problem permanently.

The threat is global. A report by the United Nations Environment Program said, “Fish, including shellfish, contribute 15% of animal protein for three billion people worldwide. A further one billion people rely on fisheries for their primary source of protein.... Fish stocks, already declining in many areas due to over-fishing and habitat destruction now face the new threats posed by ocean acidification.”

Each and every day, humans loft 70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the seas absorb a fourth of that. Unless we are feeling suicidal, it is time to change our way of doing business. This is not a matter of finding empathy for our grandchildren who will be stuck living on a simmering, stormy planet because we refuse to end our carbon-burning ways, this is a matter of killing off species that feed us today.

Global warming is the foreboding thunder in the distance. Ocean acidification is the lightning strike in our frontyard, right here, right now.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ocean-acidification-20121127,0,3773335.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ocean-acidification-20121127,0,3773335.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 12, 2012, 09:15:17 pm

Climate change conforming to UN predictions: scientists (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/climate-change-conforming-to-un-predictions/4417644)

     ABC News - 12:55pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time, Monday, December 10, 2012


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on December 12, 2012, 10:36:18 pm
Global Warming

But its been getting colder for the last 16 years  ::)


global warming is over long live global cooling

If you pay me money I will save the world from cooling

Lets call it an ice tax

Get your self some ice credits from me today  ;D

There's good money to be made from fear mongering lol 

Al's Carbon Footprint

PHOTOS: Al Gore's New $8.875 Million Montecito Villa

Real Estate , Al Gore , Los Angeles Real Estate , Celebrity Homes , Al Gore Global Warming , Al Gore Montecito , Al Gore's New Home , Gore Montecito , Montecito , Oprah-Montecito , Real Estalker , Slidepollajax , Los Angeles News
Via Real Estalker, Al and Tipper Gore have picked up a $8.875M luxury getaway in Montecito, CA; a swanky zip code that has attracted big name residents like Oprah Winfrey, Steve Martin, and Kirk Douglas. Records show that the approximately 6,500 sq. foot home boasts 6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a large pool house, 6 fireplaces, wood framed french doors, and carved stone detailing throughout. Check out the slideshow and see what you think: tacky or tasteful.

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91230_large.jpg?1355305672721)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91232_large.jpg?1355305931178)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91241_large.jpg?1355305936006)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91242_large.jpg?1355305972482)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91244_large.jpg?1355305992358)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91245_large.jpg?1355306010729)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91252_large.jpg?1355306033578)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91253_large.jpg?1355306053204)

Al Gore's house

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al-gores-house-2/


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 14, 2012, 10:28:12 am

From the Los Angeles Times....

Blind faith of climate change deniers endangers us all

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Thursday, December 13, 2012

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2012dec13a.jpg)
Climate change deniers refuse to accept scientific warnings. — Cartoon: David Horsey/Los Angeles Times/December 13, 2012.

THIS WEEK's Newsweek magazine features a couple of essays — one about Jesus and one about climate change — that demonstrate the difference between simple faith in the unknowable and blind faith that denies scientific fact.

An article by Bart D. Ehrman (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/09/what-do-we-really-know-about-jesus.html), professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, discusses things that people believe about the birth of Christ that are actually not in the Bible.

For instance, despite what the Christmas carols say, nowhere in the holy book does it mention an ox and ass beside the manger or the exact number of wise men following the star (a star that seems to be operating contrary to the laws of physics, by the way).

More unsettling for those who want to take the Gospel accounts literally, the genealogies of Joseph cited in Matthew and Luke that link him to King David are at odds with each other. And the census of "the whole world" declared by Caesar Augustus that allegedly sent Mary and Joseph on a journey to Bethlehem is not mentioned anywhere in the very comprehensive bureaucratic records of the Roman Empire.

Doubters have concluded that the nativity stories are obvious myths meant primarily to connect Jesus to the Jewish messianic prophecies. Plenty of others feel no need to take every element of the Christmas story as fact. For them, the spirit of the tale is what matters most. Literalists insist anything is possible with God (including a virgin giving birth), and they have formulated ingenious ways to reconcile the discrepancies in the Gospel accounts.

Two millenniums away from the actual event, there is no way to determine perfect truth and no great harm done if folks choose to believe every aspect of the lovely story of that silent night.

Great harm is what comes from denying scientific facts about 21st century issues. That is the concern of the second Newsweek article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/09/bakken-oil-boom-and-climate-change-threaten-the-future-of-pasta.html). Written by Mark Hertsgaard, author of "Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth", it documents a stark threat to mankind's food supply:

"By 2050, scientists project, the world's leading wheat belts — the U.S. and Canadian Midwest, northern China, India, Russia, and Australia — on average will experience, every other year, a hotter summer than the hottest summer now on record. Wheat production in that period could decline between 23 and 27 percent, reports the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), unless swift action is taken to limit temperature rise and develop crop varieties that can tolerate a hotter world."

Hertsgaard takes the reader to North Dakota, where climate change has forced production of durum wheat from the east into the west of the state. Ironically, farmers are now bumping up against the oil boom in western North Dakota that is gobbling up farmland, sucking up vast quantities of water and flaring huge amounts of natural gas into the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating the ongoing rise in global temperatures that are threatening not only wheat crops, but rice and corn as well.

Yet, even though the consequences of climate change are becoming frighteningly obvious and, as Hertsgaard writes, "scientists at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency linked the record heat and drought of summer of 2012 with man-made climate change,” far too many conservatives cling to a blind faith that climate science is a hoax. Doug Goehring, North Dakota’s Republican agriculture commissioner, is typical of them all. Rather than believe the science, he says, "I believe an agenda is being pushed."

Yes, it is — but it is the agenda of oil companies and other extracting industries that will not let a looming peril to humanity get in the way of their profits. And it is the climate change deniers in Congress and in state governments who faithfully push that agenda and will not be dissuaded, even by a host of angels.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-blind-faith-20121213,0,4041383.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-blind-faith-20121213,0,4041383.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 21, 2013, 12:45:22 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

New Western governor sets his sights on climate change solutions

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Friday, January 18, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013jan18a.jpg)

WHEN WE were classmates at Ingraham High School in Seattle, Jay Inslee was quarterback of the football team and a key player on the state champion basketball squad. I was a fledgling cartoonist and editorial writer on the student newspaper. On Wednesday afternoon, as I watched Inslee shoot hoops with his buddies under the new backboard he had just put up on his garage, it struck me that some things have not changed. It was still basketballs for him, cartoons for me.

But, in truth, the change is rather dramatic. My bio now starts with the phrase “two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner.” Inslee, as a congressman, threw elbows and blocked shots on the White House basketball court with President Obama. And now, that hoop and net he just installed is attached to the garage outside the governor's mansion in Olympia, Washington. As of Wednesday, his bio has a new top line: 23rd governor of the state of Washington.

I traveled to Olympia to see Inslee sworn in. After all, how often does a friend become a governor? And what other governor at his swearing-in would have chosen to be introduced by Dennis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day?

Inslee and I were only acquaintances in our teenage years. Our friendship really started at Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993. I was in Washington, D.C., covering the event; Jay was a freshman member of Congress. As we walked along a marble hallway in one of the House office buildings, he expressed amazement at where he was and what he was doing. "Our dads are supposed to be doing this, not us!" he laughed.

In 1996, I spent several days tracking him during his first run for governor. He had lost his congressional seat in the watershed election of 1994 when Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 50 years and now he was engaged in a quixotic primary campaign against Democratic heavyweights. His life consisted of nonstop fundraising calls and dispiriting candidates’ events where he made his pitch to nearly-empty rooms.

On the night of his primary defeat, standing with just a few friends and teary-eyed staffers at his quiet campaign headquarters, Inslee quoted from memory Theodore Roosevelt’s famous speech about the man in the arena “who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Two years later, the indefatigable Inslee was returned to Congress from a different district and easily held that seat until he left to campaign for governor again last year. In Congress, he became a leader on new energy technology and climate change. I once asked him how anything would ever get done to forestall the looming climate calamity, given the pitiful lack of political will on the issue. As always, he was upbeat, certain that smart leaders would find a solution, certain this was not another quixotic fight.

So, it was no surprise that, in his inaugural speech as governor, Inslee told the assembled legislators he believes the state can lead the world in providing a technological response to the climate challenge. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated in California that states can take effective action to reduce carbon emissions even while the federal government dawdles. Inslee wants his state to follow a similar path and, in the process, create new jobs in the clean energy industry

Republican legislators, many of whom cling to the idea that climate change is as mythical as unicorns, sat glumly as he directed a message to them: “We don’t deny science in Washington; we embrace it. We do not follow technological innovation; we lead it. And we will not pass up a golden opportunity to create jobs.”

At the governor’s mansion, two hours after his inaugural address and a few minutes before the basketball game, I reminded Inslee of that feeling he had when he first went to Congress, that sense that an older generation should still be in charge. I asked him how he felt on his first day as governor. His answer was firm: “I am ready now.”

So much of the time, politics is dismal and disheartening, but, on Wednesday, I was reminded that elections matter. That is how we raise up good men and women like Jay Inslee who consider “daring greatly” to be their life’s mission.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-western-governor-20130117,0,1055506.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-western-governor-20130117,0,1055506.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on January 24, 2013, 02:55:20 pm
The claim that the first IPCC report's "projection" of future climate was correct has been debunked by the leaked AR5 draft...by their own graphs.

The comical entry above that it was correct can only be attributed by rounding up, and even then it only fits the very bottom of the range.

The leaked draft is quite illuminating. The IPCC is even prepared to say the sun has been a major influence on climate. The IPCC continues to draw upon activists (Greenpeace, WWF for example) for its references rather than less partisan sources.

The UK Metservice has been forced to admit no warming in 16 years. Their own models project no more warming for another five years.

James Hansen has had to concede natural variability in climate change (though he is adamant that it will return to his abymsally performing record.)

The debacle is slowly being unravelled. It will be interesting to see how long this modern myth can keep running until it is completely debunked except to the extreme fringe groups.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on March 02, 2013, 09:49:51 am


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on March 02, 2013, 10:17:16 am


re http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,600.0/msg,144523.html

I haven't read this either. Should I ?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/16/1334921/leaked-ipcc-draft-report-recent-warming-is-manmade-cloud-feedback-is-positive-inaction-is-suicidal/?mobile=nc


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 02, 2013, 11:00:40 am

from The Guardian....

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate
groups working to discredit climate change science


By SUZANNE GOLDENBERT - US Environment Correspondent | 1:39PM GMT - Thursday, 14 February 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/guardian_2013feb14a_zps36070b7d.jpg)
Climate sceptic groups are mobilising against Obama’s efforts to act on
climate change in his second term. — Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.


CONSERVATIVE BILLIONAIRES used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change), the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust (http://www.donorstrust.org) and the Donors Capital Fund (http://www.donorscapitalfund.org/), operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/guardian_2013feb14b_zps159dca8a.jpg)
The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents
of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire
Koch brothers. — Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.


"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.

By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."

Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organisations working to discredit climate science or block climate action.

Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.

"Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not," she went on. "Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defence, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced."

By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.

The money flowed to Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.

The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/guardian_2013feb14c_zpsf7e41cda.jpg)
Graphic: climate denial funding.

Those same groups are now mobilising against Obama's efforts to act on climate change in his second term. A top recipient of the secret funds on Wednesday put out a point-by-point critique of the climate content in the president's state of the union address.

And it was all done with a guarantee of complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.

"The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It's also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing," said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records.

"These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable. There is no transparency, no accountability for the money. There is no way to tell who is funding them," Davies said.

The trusts were established for the express purpose of managing donations to a host of conservative causes.

Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful.

That opposition hardened over the years, especially from the mid-2000s where the Greenpeace record shows a sharp spike in funds to the anti-climate cause.

In effect, the Donors Trust was bankrolling a movement, said Robert Brulle (http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj), a Drexel University sociologist who has extensively researched the networks of ultra-conservative donors.

"This is what I call the counter-movement, a large-scale effort that is an organised effort and that is part and parcel of the conservative movement in the United States " Brulle said. "We don't know where a lot of the money is coming from, but we do know that Donors Trust is just one example of the dark money flowing into this effort."

In his view, Brulle said: "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."

The rise of that movement is evident in the funding stream. In 2002, the two trusts raised less than $900,000 for the anti-climate cause. That was a fraction of what Exxon Mobil or the conservative oil billionaire Koch brothers donated to climate sceptic groups that year.

By 2010, the two Donor Trusts between them were channelling just under $30m to a host of conservative organisations opposing climate action or science. That accounted to 46% of all their grants to conservative causes, according to the Greenpeace analysis.

The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one.

"There is plenty of money coming from elsewhere," said John Mashey, a retired computer executive who has researched funding for climate contrarians. "Focusing on the Kochs gets things confused. You can not ignore the Kochs. They have their fingers in too many things, but they are not the only ones."

It is also possible the Kochs continued to fund their favourite projects using the anonymity offered by Donor Trust.

But the records suggest many other wealthy conservatives opened up their wallets to the anti-climate cause — an impression Ball wishes to stick.

She argued the media had overblown the Kochs support for conservative causes like climate contrarianism over the years. "It's so funny that on the right we think George Soros funds everything, and on the left you guys think it is the evil Koch brothers who are behind everything. It's just not true. If the Koch brothers didn't exist we would still have a very healthy organisation," Ball said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network)



from The Guardian....

How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups

The secretive funding network distributed $118m to 102 groups
including some of the best-known thinktanks on the right


By SUZANNE GOLDENBERG - US Environment Correspondent | 1.46PM GMT - Thursday, 14 February 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/guardian_2013feb14d_zps85474d2d.jpg)
Dozens of exhibitors promote their oil and gas related businesses. By 2010,
Donors Trust had distributed $118m to 102 thinktanks or action groups.
 — Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA.


THE SECRETIVE funding channel known as the Donors Trust (http://donorstrust.org) patronised a host of conservative causes.

But climate was at the top of the list. By 2010, Donors Trust had distributed $118m to 102 thinktanks or action groups (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network) which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change), or opposing environmental regulations.

Recipients included some of the best-known thinktanks on the right. The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org), which is closely connected to the Republican party establishment and has a large staff of scholars, received more than $17m in untraceable donations over the years, the record show.

But relatively obscure organisations did not go overlooked. The Heartland Institute (http://heartland.org), virtually unknown outside the small world of climate politics, received $13.5m from the Donors Trust.

Americans for Prosperity (http://americansforprosperity.org), the Tea Party group seen as the strike force of the conservative oil billionaire Koch Brothers, received $11m since 2002.

Levi Russell, spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, declined to comment on the importance of that support to the organisation. "We're very grateful for each of the millions of activists and donors that make what we do possible," he said in an email.

The secretive funding network also funded individuals, such as Jo Kwong, an official at the Philanthropy Roundtable (http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org) who was awarded $200,000 in 2010. And there was strong interest in funding media projects.

Some of the groups on the Donors Trust list would have struggled to exist without being bankrolled by anonymous donors.

The support helped the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (http://www.cfact.org) (Cfact), expand from $600,000 to $3m annual operation. In 2010, Cfact received nearly half of its budget from those anonymous donors, the records show.

The group's most visible product is the website, Climate Depot (http://climatedepot.com), a contrarian news source run by Marc Morano. Climate Depot sees itself as the rapid reaction force of the anti-climate cause. On the morning after Obama's state of the union address, Morano put out a point by point rebuttal to the section on climate change (http://climatedepot.com/a/19683/Obama-fails-climate-science-in-his-State-of-the-Union-address--Climate-Depots-pointbypoint-rebuttal-to-the-Presidents-global-warming-claims).

The gregarious Morano is a former aide to the Republican senator Jim Inhofe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite) notorious for declaring climate change the greatest hoax on mankind.

According to Cfact's tax filings, Morano, listed as communications director, was the most highly paid member of the organisation.

However, Craig Rucker, the group's executive director, insisted the funding was not critical to their work. "It is not crucial in the least. Climate Depot's continued operation is not linked to funding from any particular source," he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: ssweetpea on March 02, 2013, 04:21:59 pm
Sounds a bit like when Galileo locked horns with the Catholic Church over heliocentrism.

The Catholic won intially but Galieo was the one who was proven to be correct.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on March 04, 2013, 03:46:32 pm
You're assuming of course Suzanne Goldenberg is being completely honest. I don't know all the organisations she mentioned, but I have passing familiarity with the Heartland Institute. It is true the Koch brothers donated money to the Heartland Institute. There is one problem with Goldenberg's argument though: none of it was earmarked for climate scepticism. It was all earmarked for health. IOW the Koch brothers gave zero dollars for the cause Goldenberg wants us to believe her on.

How much of the rest is true is brought into disrepute. Americans for Prosperity probably have lots of things they devote money to and I'd really be interested in the amount Exxon Mobil gave away since I've found Greenpeace et al on this to be totally fraudalent. Exxon Mobil on the other hand has given money away to Green projects in the past...

Even if Goldenberg were true, it is still small change compared to the billions climate activists get. It is somewhat out of date, but the US government has given $79billion away to them. In the last year the Australian Gilliard government has given $1.6billion to the cause.

Dr Michael Mann has recently been exposed to getting $10,000 a pop for one or two hour seminars. Dr James Hansen as reluctantly released by NASA has earned over $1million from his activism. How much he has really earned from such activity is anybody's guess.

When you present these types of charges, you should try and achieve some sort of balance.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on March 04, 2013, 03:54:13 pm
When it comes to funding climate activisim pays extremely well

Climate money (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf). This was written in 2009 and so the amount of money given to these activists will be even more.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on March 14, 2013, 12:13:06 pm
ClimateGate III is now here. The person, known by the pseudonym FOIA*, responsible for the last two leaks (ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II) has given out the 128bit password to select individuals so that the remaining emails and data can be released.

One of the protests by the Hockey Team is their emails were taken out of context. When all of the emails are redacted (email addresses and so forth) they will not be able to hide behind this excuse anymore.

Interestingly enoughly one of the latest finds is the Hockey Team not only admitting that the Medieval Warm Period (and Little Ice Age) existed, but that it was global.

* Freedom Of Information Act: similar to our Official Information Act (OIA)

You can read more at Watts up with that (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on March 14, 2013, 01:07:31 pm
* Cue for inane gif or cartoon.....


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 16, 2013, 12:35:55 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202013/8433295sr_VanishingMonarchs_16Mar13_zpsb12ab598.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on March 16, 2013, 12:37:24 pm
* Cue for inane gif or cartoon.....
Bingo!


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on March 26, 2013, 03:19:52 pm
Has the flip to the 70s global cooling and Ice Age propaganda begun again?

The coming Ice Age (http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/vermischtes/article114733276/Wissenschaftler-warnen-vor-Eiszeit.html) (only in German unfortunately.)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 26, 2013, 03:59:25 pm

Hahaha.....things are sooooooooo predictable.

The drought continues, so cue anti-warmalists jumping in with SPIN to try to divert attention from the earth heating up.

Those flat-earthers sure are funny-buggers!  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/09_ROFLMAO.gif)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on March 26, 2013, 04:07:53 pm
There hasn't been any shortage of rain, it's simply been ending up in the ocean at the same latitude as us but at the wrong longitude.
It's atmospheric pressure causing the dry spell, not higher temperatures as such. We're stuck in a persistent anticyclone.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on March 26, 2013, 05:23:24 pm
That and parts of Australia got loads of rain due to that high pressure, but some people are super stupid and go on about a flat earth.

The earth has not warmed up since 1997. That is an inconvenient fact for the warmmongers.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 02, 2013, 12:20:31 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

Earth's greenhouse gas levels approach 400-ppm milestone (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-greenhouse-gas--earth-20130430,0,119469.story)

          (5:25AM - Wednesday, August 1st, 2013)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on May 02, 2013, 12:22:48 pm
And?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on May 02, 2013, 01:39:51 pm
And?

There's this delusion that the climate was perfect when CO2 was 350 parts per million or less. Bill McKibben, an alarmist supreme, even has a website devoted to the concept. McKibben is regularly cited. Apparently we need to get back this magic number* and then the climate will be perfect again. No floods, droughts, superstorms, cyclones, hurricanes, prostitution** or anything bad happened when CO2 levels were at this figure or lower.

* Seemingly a number plucked out of thin air, hence 'magic.'
** Yes, the US Democrats are promoting this in the Congress at the moment.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on May 02, 2013, 01:57:01 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

Earth's greenhouse gas levels approach 400-ppm milestone (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-greenhouse-gas--earth-20130430,0,119469.story)

          (5:25AM - Wednesday, August 1st, 2013)

And it has been over 7,000 ppm in the past, with an average global temperature of 20' Centigrade with it. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/Ash01/Gifs/confused-smiley-013.gif) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ash01/media/Gifs/confused-smiley-013.gif.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 02, 2013, 05:34:45 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2012dec13a.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on May 02, 2013, 07:09:31 pm
If the temperature was increasing, your little pic might make sense.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: sickofpollies on May 02, 2013, 07:17:20 pm
If the temperature was increasing, your little pic might make sense.

The real deniers of climate change (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 12, 2013, 06:08:01 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Bloomberg unveils sweeping disaster protection plan for New York

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveils a $20-billion proposal that he says would protect New Yorkers
from climate disasters. It includes levees, surge barriers and a new ‘Seaport City’.


By MATT PEARCE | 4:45PM - Tuesday, June 11, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013jun11ny_zps094650fa.jpg)
This file photo of May 10th, 2013 shows view of the Manhattan Bridge, left, and Brooklyn Bridge as seen from the 105th floor of One World Trade
Center, in New York. Seven months after Superstorm Sandy swamped New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a nearly $20 billion plan
Tuesday, June 11th, 2013, to protect the city from the effects of global warming and storms. — Photo: Mark Lennihan/Associated Press.


IN A far-reaching plan that would reshape the coastline of the nation's largest city, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveiled a $20-billion proposal Tuesday that he said will protect New Yorkers from disasters brought on by climate change.

New York's marriage with the sea has grown more fraught after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the city's 520-mile coastline.

The sweeping proposal, which could impact the city for years after the mayor's departure from office in January, calls for a series of new floodwalls, levees, surge barriers and even construction of a new "Seaport City" to protect the East River shoreline.

“This plan is incredibly ambitious — and much of the work will extend far beyond the next 200 days — but we refused to pass the responsibility for creating a plan onto the next administration," Bloomberg said in prepared remarks. "This is urgent work, and it must begin now.”

The specter of climate change and rising waters have loomed over New York more urgently since Sandy wrought an estimated $20 billion in damage along the eastern seaboard.

Reinsurance providers have warned that the northeastern U.S. should expect more frequent flood and hurricane damage as waters rise and weather patterns change.

One Munich RE researcher said earlier this year (http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2013/2013_01_03_press_release.aspx) that taking basic protective steps to adapt would be "absolutely essential," with another adding that such moves would make economic sense for New York over time. About 400,000 New York residents live in a 100-year flood plain, city officials said.

To support the proposals, Bloomberg has marshaled a small army of experts (http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2013a%2Fsupport_for_sirr.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1) and a climate-change report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/npcc_climate_risk_information_2013_report.pdf) that estimates New York City could see its waters rise as much as 31 inches by 2050.

The report also presents worst-case scenarios in which the city gets 15% more precipitation and a 6.5-degree increase in average annual temperature in that time.

More than just beefing up New York's coastal defenses, the plan also carries a series of political proposals that would redevelop areas hit hardest by Sandy and rewrite the city's construction codes.

One proposal offers building owners $1.2 billion in grants and loans for flood-resiliency upgrades, and another changes building codes that would require hospitals to adopt 500-year-flood safety standards.

Other proposals would expand emergency-generator coverage and add standards for utility and telecommunications companies to repair service swiftly after outages.

"Millions of New Yorkers lost power during Sandy and hundreds of thousands lost heat, Internet service, or phone service," Bloomberg said.

"When a crisis hits, when we really need them most, we lose access to them. That is not acceptable," he said. "Most of these networks are not run or regulated by the city, but the time has come for all of our private-sector partners to step up to the plate and join us in protecting New Yorkers."

Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of power provider Con Edison, said in a statement that "Con Edison has already begun making significant investments to protect our infrastructure and our customers from future storms."

The city will also have to tackle tough new federal flood insurance rates that Bloomberg said would overburden working families in Staten Island.

The 250 recommendations in the new plan — titled the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency — could use $15 billion in existing city and federal funding that could be driven toward the project, with the city considering various ways to come up with $4.5 billion in additional funds.

Whether all of those proposals will find traction with New Yorkers and federal purseholders is yet to be seen, particularly after Bloomberg leaves office, but the plan presents one of the most ambitious municipal disaster-prevention projects in recent memory.

"We can't completely climate-proof our city. That would be impossible," Bloomberg said. "But we can make our city stronger and safer — and we can start today."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bloomberg-climate-change-20130611,0,7933233.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bloomberg-climate-change-20130611,0,7933233.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 07, 2013, 01:28:43 pm

Volatile weather ‘the new normal’

By SIMON DAY - The Dominion Post | 10:37AM - Sunday, 07 July 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/8824392sr_07Jul13_zps2fd82f18.jpg)
WARMING CLIMATE: A falling tree took out a power pole and lines, blocking Warwick Street in the Wellington suburb of Wilton. — Photo: KIRSTY FARRANT.

GET USED TO IT. That "once in 20 years" freak storm is forecast to happen again sooner than you think.

Experts say the wild weather of recent months — heavy snowstorms and flooding in the South Island, and stormy winds in Wellington — is the new normal, and the country needs to prepare for more temperamental weather as the climate warms.

Based on median predictions for temperature increases over the next century, New Zealand's climate will get drier in some regions, wetter in others, and higher winds and more cyclones will occur, NIWA says.

Extreme winds are likely to increase across New Zealand in winter and decrease in summer, especially for the Wellington region and the eastern South Island.

In many parts of the North Island and the eastern parts of the South Island longer droughts are expected.

"We might expect to see, not every year, but on average another couple of weeks of drought each year," said David Wratt, NIWA chief scientist.

Wratt warned the wisest thing to do for New Zealand was to was "plan accordingly".

Winds that reached over 200km/h during last month's Wellington storm left more than 30,000 homes without power and heavy rain washed out large parts of the capital's railway lines.

While a number of city councils have climate change action plans, local governments need to start taking action immediately, climate change advisers say.

"The longer we delay, the more our options become limited," said Chris Cameron, principal climate change adviser for Wellington City Council.

Rebuilding storm-damaged infrastructure without adding further resilience would not provide long-term solutions, Cameron said.

"There is a gap between the level and the consequence of the issue and the response," he said.

The long-term cost needed to be measured against the short-term needs of the community, said council policy manager Andrew Stitt.

"There is a question about being able to maintain the level of service, versus a long-term investment for change. We are constantly making those tradeoffs," he said.

Farmers accept the science, but are not worried by the potential for more extreme drought.

"I don't hold any grave concerns about forecast weather changes because I know farmers are an adaptable, changeable bunch," said Bruce Wills, president of Federated Farmers.

The nationwide drought in 2007-2008 cost the New Zealand economy $2.8 billion. Last summer's drought, a one-in-70-year event, cost the economy $1.3b.

The reduced impact, despite the size of the most recent drought, was due to farmers being better prepared, Wills said.

"I got through this year pretty comfortably because I turned my farming business upside down after I got caught unprepared in 2007," he said.

He built 60 new dams, swapped much of his sheep stock for drought-resistant cattle, and grew his grass longer to be more resilient in low rainfall. "Good farmers will adjust to conditions and adjust their business accordingly," he said.


STORM WREAKS HAVOC

TREES were felled, roofs torn off, and power lines went down after a storm swept through Canterbury and the lower North Island on Friday night and early yesterday morning.

Winds reached up to 135km/h in parts of Canterbury and Wellington, with wind warnings in place yesterday in the Wairarapa and a weather watch across Hawke's Bay and the Tararua Ranges for rain.

In the south, falling trees took out power lines at 2am and sparked a fire.

"We had a huge northwest gust of wind come through this morning," said Lincoln fire chief Kevin Greene yesterday.

"With that huge wind behind it, [the fire] just took off."

At one point, there were 45 firefighters, six pumps and five tankers dealing with the fires that flared along a 2km stretch. It was contained by 5.30am.

About 9800 households also lost access to power with lines down. Most were reconnected by the afternoon.

Kaikoura was blocked after a truck stopped in the middle of the road. The driver felt it was too dangerous to continue driving.

Yesterday's strong winds are set to continue through the weekend in the lower North Island, and the rain expected right through next week, said MetService forecaster Elke Louw.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8888718/Volatile-weather-the-new-normal (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8888718/Volatile-weather-the-new-normal)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on July 07, 2013, 02:23:04 pm
Thank god for that, it's another NIWA prediction. Had me worried for about .00003 seconds there.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 13, 2013, 12:35:21 am
Always did have a bit of time for Ken Ring...
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/17924887/wondering-where-the-warming-went/


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on July 13, 2013, 10:11:39 am
Nicely credible except for the bit about waves on the surface being created by underwater volcanism and in turn causing winds.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 13, 2013, 04:53:48 pm

Hahaha....I love it when a claim is made that someone/something is nicely credible.....EXCEPT.....

It's like qualifying something with that word BUT.



(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/TooFunny.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LaughingPinkPanther.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/ROFLMAO_Dog.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LaughingHard.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/ItchyBugga.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 13, 2013, 06:02:16 pm
From what I have gathered, it seems that Ring has a much better average predictio(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/Ash01/Gifs/confused-smiley-013.gif) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ash01/media/Gifs/confused-smiley-013.gif.html)n rate than NIWA......


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on July 28, 2013, 09:41:53 pm

meanwhile
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/north-pole-melting-leaves_n_3652373.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 31, 2013, 04:01:17 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/ClimateChangeDeniers_25jul13_zpsff2d7d7d.jpg) (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/us-politics-climate-change-scepticism)

            (click on the graphic to read the news story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 12, 2013, 02:40:56 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Effects of climate change in California are ‘significant and growing’

Environmental shifts, such as higher sea temperatures and shrinking glaciers in the
Sierra Nevada, point to overwhelming evidence of climate change, state scientists say.


By TONY BARBOZA | 6:38PM - Saturday, August 10, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013aug10y_zps04f3e48d.jpg)
The Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park on January 3rd, 2012, reveals a landscape usually frozen and covered with snow at that time of year.
Several evidences of climate change that state scientiests cited were from the Sierra Nevada, including reduced spring runoff.
 — Photo: Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times.


CALIFORNIA is feeling the effects of climate change far and wide, as heat-trapping greenhouse gases reduce spring runoff from the Sierra Nevada, make the waters of Monterey Bay more acidic and shorten winter chill periods required to grow fruit and nuts in the Central Valley, a new report says.

Though past studies have offered grim projections of a warming planet, the report released Thursday by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://oehha.ca.gov) took an inventory of three dozen shifts that are already happening.

"The nature of these changes is that they're occurring gradually, but the impacts are significant and growing," said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the health hazard assessment office, a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.calepa.ca.gov).

Among the effects detailed in the report: The number of acres burned by wildfires in California has been increasing since 1950, with the three worst fire seasons occurring in the last decade. Sea surface temperatures at La Jolla have risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, twice as much as the global average. Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking, and water in lakes, including Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake, has warmed over the last few decades.

The changes associated with global warming can be irregular. Sea level rise in California, for instance, has bucked the global pattern and leveled off over the last two decades, the report notes.

But the overall trend is overwhelming, scientists say.

"These environmental indicators are leaning very dominantly in a single direction that is consistent with the early phases of climate change," said Dan Cayan, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the U.S. Geological Survey who contributed to the report. "It's not something that's 100 years away; it's already starting to play out."

The report also describes some of the ways plants and animals appear to be responding to a warming climate. Butterflies in the Central Valley are emerging earlier in the spring, and Sierra Nevada conifer trees have retreated upslope over the last 60 years, the report says. About half of the small mammals in Yosemite National Park have moved to higher elevations compared with decades ago.

The analysis drew from data and scientific research from throughout the state. It updates a similar statewide inventory released in 2009 but includes 10 additional problems now linked to climate change, including ocean acidification, tree deaths in the Sierra Nevada and zones of higher temperatures within cities that are known as "urban heat islands."


• Download the report Indicators of Climate Change in California (http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsReport2013.pdf)

• Download the Summary Report: Indicators of Climate Change in California (http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsSummaryAugust2013.pdf)

• Download the Press Release issued jointly by OEHHA and Cal/EPA (http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/press/ClimateChange_PressRelease.pdf)

• Download an earlier 2009 Climate Change report (http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsApril2009.pdf)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0811-calif-climate-20130811,0,4664481.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0811-calif-climate-20130811,0,4664481.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 23, 2013, 06:24:31 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Climate change deniers live in ignorant bliss as seas keep rising

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Thursday, August 22, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013aug22al_zps2b156cf1.jpg)

A NEW climate-change report from the United Nations that was leaked to the media this week says sea levels could rise by more than 3 feet by the end of the 21st century and that there is a 95% likelihood that the global warming that is causing this rise is largely a result of human activity. You may now cue the deniers who say somebody is just making this stuff up.

In this case, that somebody is the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific team that issues periodic assessments of our planet’s shifting climate. Its report, which is still under review, is scheduled for release in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014. Just like a slew of other scientific studies, it warns that major coastal cities, including New York, Miami, New Orleans, London, Shanghai and Sydney, are in peril of being inundated by the rising seas.  And, like those numerous other reports, it says dramatically increased levels of carbon dioxide produced by industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels are likely to lead to extreme heat waves, widespread melting of polar and glacial ice, drought, crop failures and extinction of many plants and animals.

As dire as this sounds, there are already those who complain the new report, like previous IPCC assessments, understates the problem. In an interview with the Huffington Post, the director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, Michael Mann, said the sea level rise might actually reach 6 feet by 2100.

"This fits a pattern of the IPCC tending to err on the side of conservative, in part — I believe — because of fear of being attacked by the climate change denial machine," Mann said.

And, of course, that denial machine is always humming. On Monday, one of the U.S. Senate’s most vociferous climate change deniers, Senator James M. Inhofe (Republican-Oklahoma), was on Mike Huckabee’s radio show sharing misinformation with the host. The conservative pair traded a series of bogus claims that purported to prove there was nothing to worry about when it comes to increasing global temperatures.

Oddly, former-Arkansas Governor Huckabee was once a climate change believer who backed a cap-and-trade plan for industry to cut CO2 emissions. Then, of course, Huckabee decided to go after the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and had to dispense with scientific knowledge in favor of the right-wing magical thinking that pervades the base of the Republican Party.

Ah, to be a conservative climate change denier. While real scientists must do all the research and engage in heated debates about just how bad things are going to be, the deniers can rest easy in the bliss of willful ignorance.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-climate-change-deniers-20130821,0,6254618.story (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-climate-change-deniers-20130821,0,6254618.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 28, 2013, 02:02:09 pm

Climate panel: warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made

The New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz) | 10:32PM - Friday, September 27, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202013/nzh_Emissions_28sep13_zps243c2c92.jpg)
Global warming is likely to be man-made, says a scientific panel.

SCIENTISTS can now say with extreme confidence that human activity is the dominant cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, a new report by an international scientific group said today.

Calling man-made warming "extremely likely," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch) used the strongest words yet on the issue as it adopted its assessment on the state of the climate system.

In its previous assessment, in 2007, the UN-sponsored panel said it was "very likely" that global warming was man-made.

One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with a purported slowdown in warming in the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this "hiatus" casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.

Many governments had objections over how the issue was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted altogether.

In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don't in general reflect long-term trends.

"An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.

Many scientists say the purported slowdown reflects random climate fluctuations and an unusually hot year, 1998, picked as a starting point for charting temperatures. Another leading hypothesis is that heat is settling temporarily in the oceans, but that wasn't included in the summary.

Stocker said there wasn't enough literature on "this emerging question".

The IPCC said the evidence of climate change has grown thanks to more and better observations, a clearer understanding of the climate system and improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.

"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, co-chair of the working group that wrote the report.

The full 2,000-page report (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1) isn't going to be released until Monday, but the summary for policymakers (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf) with the key findings was published Friday. It contained few surprises as many of the findings had been leaked in advance.

As expected, the IPCC raised its projections of the rise in sea levels to 10-32 inches (26-82cm) by the end of the century. The previous report predicted a rise of 7-23 inches (18-59cm).

The IPCC assessments are important because they form the scientific basis of U.N. negotiations on a new climate deal. Governments are supposed to finish that agreement in 2015, but it's unclear whether they will commit to the emissions cuts that scientists say will be necessary to keep the temperature below a limit at which the worst effects of climate change can be avoided.

Using four scenarios with different emissions controls, the report projected that global average temperatures would rise by 0.3°C to 4.8°C by the end of the century.

Only the two lower scenarios, which were based on significant cuts in CO2 emissions, came in below the 2°C limit that countries have set as their target in the climate talks to avoid the worst impacts of warming.

"This is yet another wakeup call: Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire," US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement. "Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling, and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate."

At this point, emissions keep rising mainly due to rapid growth in China and other emerging economies. They say rich countries should take the lead on emissions cuts because they've pumped carbon into the atmosphere for longer.

Climate activists said the report should spur governments to action.

"There are few surprises in this report but the increase in the confidence around many observations just validates what we are seeing happening around us," said Samantha Smith, of the World Wildlife Fund.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11131126 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11131126)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on September 28, 2013, 02:41:54 pm
Yes - Yes.... We know and understand.  Salaries, stipends and grants depend on this!

They have been scurrying round like mice in a cheese factory, all trying to figure out how to blame a drop in temperature on warming!  ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 02, 2013, 09:00:49 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Yosemite's largest ice mass is melting fast

Lyell Glacier has shrunk 62% over the past century and hasn't moved in years.
It's a key source of water in the park, and scientists say it will be gone in 20 years.


By LOUIS SAHAGUN | 9:12PM - Tuesday, October 01, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013oct01lg_zps026d9ee3.jpg)
The photo on the left of Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park was taken by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1983; the one on the right was taken by park
geologist Greg Stock in late September. — Photos: U.S. Geological Survey/Greg Stock.


CLIMATE CHANGE is taking a visible toll on Yosemite National Park, where the largest ice mass in the park is in a death spiral, geologists say.

During an annual trek to the glacier deep in Yosemite's backcountry last month, Greg Stock, the park's first full-time geologist, found that Lyell Glacier had shrunk visibly since his visit last year, continuing a trend that began more than a century ago.

Lyell has dropped 62% of its mass and lost 120 vertical feet of ice over the last 100 years. "We give it 20 years or so of existence — then it'll vanish, leaving behind rocky debris," Stock said.

The Sierra Nevada Mountains have roughly 100 remaining glaciers, two of them in Yosemite. The shrinkage of glaciers across the Sierra is also occurring around the world. Great ice sheets are dwindling, prompting concerns about what happens next to surrounding ecological systems after perennial rivulets of melted ice disappear.

"We've looked at glaciers in California, Colorado, Wyoming, Washington and elsewhere, and they're all thinning because of warming temperatures and less precipitation," said Andrew Fountain, professor of geology and geography at Portland State University in Oregon. "This is the beginning of the end of these things."

If carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, the earth will eventually become ice-free, according to a study by Ken MacLeod, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Missouri, published in the October issue of the journal Geology.

Research by scientists at NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey and UC Davis suggests that absorption of sunlight in snow by industrial air pollution including soot, or black carbon, is also causing snow and ice to melt faster.

Yosemite's other glacier, Maclure, is also shrinking, but it remains alive and continues to creep at a rate of about an inch a day.

Lyell, however, hasn't budged. It is the second largest glacier in the Sierra Nevada and the headwater of the Tuolumne River watershed, but it no longer fits the definition of a glacier because it has ceased moving.

"Lyell Glacier is stagnant — a clear sign it's dying," Stock said. "Our research indicates it stopped moving about a decade ago."

Of particular concern is the effect on Yosemite's Tuolumne Meadows. After two years of drought, many of the streams that nourish the picturesque meadowlands have gone dry. The one exception, however, is the Lyell Fork of the Tuolumne River, which is sustained by runoff from Lyell and Maclure glaciers.

"When the glaciers are gone, there will be no steady supplies of water in that drainage," Stock said. "We don't know what the impacts of that will be on plants and animals that evolved with these ice flows."

Future research projects will attempt to use climate shifts chronicled in the widths of tree rings in nearby forests to create computer models that will show the shrinkage of Yosemite's glaciers over the last 300 years — and help predict when they will disappear entirely.

Scientists also want to know why Lyell has stopped moving when neighboring Maclure, which is half the size it was a century ago, continues to advance at the same rate it did when naturalist John Muir and his friend Galen Clark hammered wooden stakes into its icy crust in 1872 to prove that glaciers are "living" because they move and alter the landscape as they do so.

"Glaciers tend to flow like honey down a plate, or slide over meltwater beneath them," Stock said. "We suspect Lyell just isn't thick enough anymore to drive a downhill motion."

Overall, "the rate of glacier retreat has accelerated since about 2000," Stock said. "Eventually, there'll be nothing left."

That's already happened at least once in Yosemite, geologists say. Black Mountain Glacier, which Muir discovered, surveyed and declared "living" in 1871, was gone by the mid-1980s.


http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-glaciers-20131002,0,7692754.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-glaciers-20131002,0,7692754.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on October 02, 2013, 10:58:02 pm
The photo on the left was actually taken in 1883, not 1983 but what's a century here or there?  Quite a lot actually, most of the world's glaciers have been in retreat for over a century since the little ice age ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyle-Glacier-1883.jpg


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 12, 2013, 01:02:04 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202013/3170_Philippines_12nov13_zps3c04b10d.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 13, 2013, 12:52:36 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202013/9389683sr_ThePhilippines_12nov13_zps358cb4c8.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 15, 2013, 07:27:17 am

From the Los Angeles Times....

Typhoon Haiyan's havoc will not impress climate change deniers

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Thursday, November 14, 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013nov14a_zps716be008.jpg)

TYPHOON HAIYAN, the monster storm that set a Hiroshima-level standard for natural devastation when it hit the Philippines on Friday, was so big that its spiral image laid over a map of the United States stretches nearly from sea to shining sea. With winds hitting sustained peaks of 195 mph and gusts up to 235 mph, it may well be the most powerful storm ever recorded.

And it is probably just the herald of many monster storms to come. As NBC News Science Editor Alan Boyle reports, “Experts say Typhoon Haiyan was about as strong as it could theoretically get when it swept through the Philippines, killing thousands of people and driving hundreds of thousands from their homes. But intensity limits have been rising over decades past — and climate models suggest they will keep rising over the decades to come, with the potential for bigger and more devastating storms.”

The ominous effects of climate change are becoming more and more obvious with each new natural disaster. For years now, polar ice has been melting and glaciers have been receding, but those effects of rising global temperatures go on quietly, far from the centers of civilization. It’s easy to ignore the plight of polar bears far to the north; less easy to be inattentive when a storm knocks out the lights in Manhattan, floods the subways and wrecks New Jersey coastal towns, as happened a year ago with Superstorm Sandy.

Still, there are plenty of folks who not only remain in denial, they take affirmative action to force other people to pretend climate change is not real. Some of these people are lobbyists who block legislation that could force industries to change their methods and reduce the carbon emissions that help drive the warming phenomenon. Some are state legislators who ban even the mention of global warming and climate change in disaster plans.

Last summer, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina passed a bill to prevent the Coastal Resources Commission from taking climate change data into account when projecting future rates of increase in the sea level along the state’s low-lying coast. They were encouraged in this by real estate developers who do not want anything to get in the way of them building more houses in vulnerable areas that might be inundated by the Atlantic in years to come.

GOP legislators in other red-leaning states are also doing what they can to legislate denial, even as their constituents cope with an increase in floods, wildfires, tornadoes and drought that may be driven by more extreme weather patterns caused by climate change.

Even as the planet is getting less hospitable to human habitation, America’s political response is being skewed by people who — for reasons of religion, greed or plain stupidity — want to play make-believe. Neither more monster storms nor disappearing polar bears will make them face up to reality. Only voters can do that.


PHOTOS: Central Philippines devastated by Typhoon Haiyan (http://framework.latimes.com/2013/11/12/typhoon-haiya)

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-typhoon-haiyans-20131113,0,921020.story (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-typhoon-haiyans-20131113,0,921020.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 20, 2013, 03:18:15 pm

Michael Klare: A Climate Change-Fueled Revolution?

posted 4:38PM - Sunday, November 17, 2013 | TomDispatch.com (http://www.tomdispatch.com/)

There’s a crossroads moment in our recent history that comes back to me whenever I think of our warming planet. (2013 is shaping up to be the seventh warmest year (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/un-2013-seventh-warmest-year-records) since records began to be kept in 1850. The 10 warmest years have all occured since 1998 (http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/2013-already-among-10-warmest-years-record-report-20131113).) In the six months from July 1979 to January 1980, as Jimmy Carter’s one-term presidency was winding down, he urged two approaches to global energy on Americans. One was dismissed out of hand, the other taken up with alacrity — and our world is incommensurately the worse for it. Here’s a description (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175703/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_the_biggest_criminal_enterprise_in_history) I wrote back in May that is worth quoting again:

On July 15th, 1979, at a time when gas lines, sometimes blocks long, were a disturbing fixture of American life, President Jimmy Carter spoke directly (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis) to the American people on television for 32 minutes, calling for a concerted effort to end the country’s oil dependence on the Middle East. ‘To give us energy security’, he announced, ‘I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun’...

It’s true that, with the science of climate change then in its infancy, Carter wouldn’t have known about the possibility of an overheating world, and his vision of ‘alternative energy’ wasn’t exactly a fossil-fuel-free one. Even then — shades of today or possibly tomorrow — he was talking about having ‘more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias’. Still, it was a remarkably forward-looking speech.

Had we invested massively in alternative energy R&D back then, who knows where we might be today? Instead, the media dubbed it the ‘malaise speech,’ though the president never actually used that word, speaking instead of an American ‘crisis of confidence’. While the initial public reaction seemed positive (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106508243), it didn’t last long. In the end, the president's energy proposals were essentially laughed out of the room and ignored for decades.

Carter would, however, make his mark on U.S. energy policy, just not quite in the way he had imagined. Six months later, on January 23, 1980, in his last State of the Union Address (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml), he would proclaim what came to be known as the Carter Doctrine: ‘Let our position be absolutely clear’, he said. ‘An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force’.

No one would laugh him out of the room for that. Instead, the Pentagon would fatefully begin organizing itself to protect U.S. (and oil) interests in the Persian Gulf on a new scale and America’s oil wars would follow soon enough. Not long after that address, it would start building up a Rapid Deployment Force in the Gulf that would in the end become U.S. Central Command. More than three decades later, ironies abound: thanks in part to those oil wars, whole swaths of the energy-rich Middle East are in crisis, if not chaos, while the big energy companies have put time and money into a staggeringly fossil-fuel version of Carter’s ‘alternative’ North America. They’ve focused on shale oil, and on shale gas as well, and with new production methods, they are reputedly on the brink of turning the United States (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175523/michael_klare_welcome_to_the_new_third_world) into a ‘new Saudi Arabia’ (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/12/is-the-united-states-the-next-saudi-arabia).

Could there have been a sadder choice in recent history? If, in 1979, the U.S. had invested in a big way in solar, wind, tidal power, and who knows what else, imagine where we might be today. Imagine a world not facing a future in which storms like Super-Typhoon Haiyan, which recently leveled part of the Philippines, its winds devastating, its storm surge killing staggering numbers, threaten to become the norm for our children and grandchildren.

So oil wars, yes! — which meant transforming the Greater Middle East into a region of chaos, instability, and death. An oil-ravaged planet, yes indeed! — which meant potentially transforming a future version of Earth into a planet of chaos, instability, and death! A green energy revolution, not on your life! — not while the giant energy corporations have so much invested in underground reserves of fossil fuels and such gigantic profits to make, not while so many governments are deeply intertwined with those energy giants or are themselves essentially giant energy companies. No wonder TomDispatch regular (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175760/michael_klare_fossil_fuel_euphoria) Michael Klare suggests that it falls into our hands to ensure that a green energy revolution arrives ahead of a human-created, fossil-fueled apocalypse.


— Tom Engelhardt

______________________________________

Surviving Climate Change

Is a Green Energy Revolution on the Global Agenda?

By Michael T. Klare (http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/michaelklare)

A WEEK after the most powerful “super typhoon” ever recorded pummeled the Philippines, killing thousands (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24954011) in a single province, and three weeks after the northern Chinese city of Harbin suffered a devastating “airpocalypse” (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-pollution-northeastern-china-20131022,0,5024464.story), suffocating the city with coal-plant pollution, government leaders beware! Although individual events like these cannot be attributed with absolute certainty to increased fossil fuel use and climate change, they are the type of disasters that, scientists tell us, will become a pervasive part of life on a planet being transformed by the massive consumption of carbon-based fuels. If, as is now the case, governments across the planet back an extension of the carbon age (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175734/michael_klare_entering_the_third_carbon_age) and ever increasing reliance on “unconventional” fossil fuels (http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/05/03/understanding-unconventional-oil/ao4f) like tar sands and shale gas, we should all expect trouble. In fact, we should expect mass upheavals leading to a green energy revolution.

None of us can predict the future, but when it comes to a mass rebellion against the perpetrators of global destruction, we can see a glimmer of the coming upheaval in events of the present moment. Take a look and you will see that the assorted environmental protests that have long bedeviled politicians are gaining in strength and support. With an awareness of climate change growing and as intensifying floods (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57609494), fires (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/31/2312591/climate-change-wildfires), droughts (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-parched-20130806-dto,0,5922502.htmlstoryj), and storms (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/typhoon-haiyan-climate-change-continues-2710436) become an inescapable feature of daily life across the planet, more people are joining environmental groups and engaging in increasingly bold protest actions. Sooner or later, government leaders are likely to face multiple eruptions of mass public anger and may, in the end, be forced to make radical adjustments in energy policy or risk being swept aside.

In fact, it is possible to imagine such a green energy revolution erupting in one part of the world and spreading like wildfire to others. Because climate change is going to inflict increasingly severe harm on human populations, the impulse to rebel is only likely to gain in strength across the planet. While circumstances may vary, the ultimate goal of these uprisings will be to terminate the reign of fossil fuels while emphasizing investment in and reliance upon renewable forms of energy. And a success in any one location is bound to invite imitation in others.

A wave of serial eruptions of this sort would not be without precedent. In the early years of twentieth-first century, for example, one government after another in disparate parts of the former Soviet Union was swept away in what were called the “color revolutions” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution) — populist upheavals against old-style authoritarian regimes. These included the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003), the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine (2004), and the “Pink” or “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (2005). In 2011, a similar wave of protests erupted in North Africa, culminating in what we call the Arab Spring.

Like these earlier upheavals, a “green revolution” is unlikely (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175737/) to arise from a highly structured political campaign with clearly identified leaders. In all likelihood, it will erupt spontaneously, after a cascade of climate-change induced disasters provokes an outpouring of public fury. Once ignited, however, it will undoubtedly ratchet up the pressure for governments to seek broad-ranging, systemic transformations of their energy and climate policies. In this sense, any such upheaval — whatever form it takes — will prove “revolutionary” by seeking policy shifts of such magnitude as to challenge the survival of incumbent governments or force them to enact measures with transformative implications.

Foreshadowings of such a process can already be found around the globe.  Take the mass environmental protests that erupted in Turkey this June. Though sparked by a far smaller concern than planetary devastation via climate change, for a time they actually posed a significant threat to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his governing party. Although his forces eventually succeeded in crushing the protests — leaving four dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/europe/development-project-in-istanbul-focus-of-violent-protests-is-stopped-by-court.html), 8,000 injured, and 11 blinded by tear-gas canisters — his reputation as a moderate Islamist was badly damaged (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eu-defends-right-peaceful-protest-turkey) by the episode.

Like so many surprising upheavals on this planet, the Turkish uprising had the most modest of beginnings: on May 27th, a handful of environmental activists blocked bulldozers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/world/europe/istanbul-protests-started-over-trees.html) sent by the government to level Gezi Park, a tiny oasis of greenery in the heart of Istanbul, and prepare the way for the construction of an upscale mall. The government responded to this small-scale, non-violent action by sending in riot police and clearing the area, a move that enraged many Turks and prompted tens of thousands of them to occupy nearby Taksim Square. This move, in turn, led to an even more brutal police crackdown (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-16/turkish-police-block-off-taksim-after-street-battles-overnight.html) and then to huge demonstrations in Istanbul and around the country. In the end, mass protests erupted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Turkey) in 70 cities, the largest display of anti-government sentiment since Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002.

This was, in the most literal sense possible, a “green” revolution, ignited by the government’s assault on the last piece of greenery in central Istanbul. But once the police intervened in full strength, it became a wide-ranging rebuke to Erdogan’s authoritarian impulses (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eu-defends-right-peaceful-protest-turkey) and his drive to remake the city (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/world/europe/in-istanbuls-taksim-square-an-achilles-heel.html) as a neo-Ottoman showplace — replete with fancy malls and high-priced condominiums — while eliminating poor neighborhoods and freewheeling public spaces like Taksim Square. “It’s all about superiority, and ruling over the people like sultans,” declared (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/world/europe/police-attack-protesters-in-istanbuls-taksim-square.html) one protestor. It’s not just about the trees in Gezi Park, said (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/world/europe/police-attack-protesters-in-istanbuls-taksim-square.html) another: “We are here to stand up against those who are trying to make a profit from our land.”


The Ningbo Rebellion

The same trajectory of events — a small-scale environmental protest evolving into a full-scale challenge to governmental authority — can be seen in other mass protests of recent years.

Take a Chinese example: in October 2012, students and middle class people joined with poor farmers to protest the construction of an $8.8 billion petrochemical facility in Ningbo, a city of 3.4 million people south of Shanghai. In a country where environmental pollution has reached nearly unprecedented levels, these protests were touched off (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/world/asia/protests-against-sinopec-plant-in-china-reach-third-day.html) by fears that the plant, to be built by the state-owned energy company Sinopec with local government support, would produce paraxylene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraxylene), a toxic substance used in plastics, paints, and cleaning solvents.

Here, too, the initial spark that led to the protests was small-scale. On October 22nd, some 200 farmers obstructed a road near the district government’s office in an attempt to block the plant’s construction. After the police were called in to clear the blockade, students from nearby Ningbo University joined the protests. Using social media, the protestors quickly enlisted support from middle-class residents of the city who converged in their thousands on downtown Ningbo. When riot police moved in to break up the crowds, the protestors fought back (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/world/asia/protests-against-expansion-of-china-chemical-plant-turn-violent.html), attacking police cars and throwing bricks and water bottles. While the police eventually gained the upper hand after several days of pitched battles, the Chinese government concluded that mass action of this sort, occurring in the heart of a major city and featuring an alliance of students, farmers, and young professionals, was too great a threat. After five days of fighting, the government gave in, announcing (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/28/chinese-factory-plan-ditched-protests) the cancellation of the petrochemical project.

The Ningbo demonstrations were hardly the first (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/06/business/Protests-Over-Large-Projects.html) such upheavals to erupt in China. They did, however, highlight a growing governmental vulnerability to mass environmental protest. For decades, the reigning Chinese Communist Party has justified its monopolistic hold on power by citing its success in generating rapid economic growth. But that growth means the use of ever more fossil fuels and petrochemicals, which, in turn, means increased carbon emissions and disastrous atmospheric pollution, including one “airpocalypse” (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169305324/beijings-air-quality-reaches-hazardous-levels) after another.

Until recently, most Chinese seemed to accept such conditions as the inevitable consequences of growth, but it seems that tolerance of environmental degradation is rapidly diminishing (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/asia/beijing-journal-anger-grows-over-air-pollution-in-china.html). As a result, the party finds itself in a terrible bind: it can slow development as a step toward cleaning up the environment, incurring a risk of growing economic discontent, or it can continue its growth-at-all-costs policy, and find itself embroiled in a firestorm of Ningbo-style environmental protests.

This dilemma — the environment versus the economy — has proven to be at the heart of similar mass eruptions elsewhere on the planet.


After Fukushima

Two of the largest protests of this sort were sparked by the reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants on March 11, 2011, after a massive tsunami struck northern Japan. In both of these actions — the first in Germany, the second in Japan — the future of nuclear power and the survival of governments were placed in doubt.

The biggest protests occurred in Germany. On March 26th, 15 days after the Fukushima explosions, an estimated 250,000 people (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12872339) participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations across the country — 100,000 in Berlin, and up to 40,000 each in Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne. “Today’s demonstrations are just the prelude to a new, strong, anti-nuclear movement,” declared Jochen Stay (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12872339), a protest leader. “We’re not going to let up until the plants are finally mothballed.”

At issue was the fate of Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants. Although touted as an attractive alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear power is seen by most Germans as a dangerous and unwelcome energy option. Several months prior to Fukushima, German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted (http://www.dw.de/merkel-hails-contentious-new-power-policy-as-greenest-in-the-world/a-5978792-1) that Germany would keep its 17 operating reactors until 2040, allowing a smooth transition from the country’s historic reliance on coal to renewable energy for generating electricity. Immediately after Fukushima, she ordered a temporary shutdown of Germany’s seven oldest reactors for safety inspections but refused to close the others, provoking an outpouring of protest.

Witnessing the scale of the demonstrations, and after suffering an electoral defeat in the key state of Baden-Württemberg, Merkel evidently came to the conclusion that clinging to her position would be the equivalent of political suicide. On May 30th, she announced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208) that the seven reactors undergoing inspections would be closed permanently and the remaining 10 would be phased out by 2022, almost 20 years earlier than in her original plan.

By all accounts, the decision to phase out nuclear power almost two decades early will have significant repercussions for the German economy. Shutting down (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nuclear-power-germany-renewable-energy) the reactors and replacing them with wind and solar energy will cost an estimated $735 billion and take several decades, producing (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html) soaring electricity bills and periodic energy shortages. However, such is the strength of anti-nuclear sentiment (http://pri.org/stories/2011-07-20/germanys-anti-nuclear-shift) in Germany that Merkel felt she had no choice but to close the reactors anyway.

The anti-nuclear protests in Japan occurred considerably later, but were no less momentous. On July 16th, 2012, 16 months after the Fukushima disaster, an estimated 170,000 people (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/world/asia/thousands-gather-in-tokyo-to-protest-nuclear-restart.html) assembled in Tokyo to protest a government plan to restart the country’s nuclear reactors, idled after the disaster. This was not only Japan's largest antinuclear demonstration in many years, but the largest of any sort to occur in recent memory.

For the government, the July 16th action was particularly significant. Prior to Fukushima, most Japanese had embraced the country’s growing reliance on nuclear power, putting their trust in the government to ensure its safety. After Fukushima and the disastrous attempts of the reactors’ owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company) (TEPCO), to deal with the situation, public support for nuclear power plummeted (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/world/asia/japans-prime-minister-orders-restart-of-2-nuclear-reactors.html). As it became increasingly evident that the government had mishandled the crisis (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301050037), people lost faith in its ability to exercise effective control over the nuclear industry. Repeated promises that nuclear reactors could be made safe lost all credibility when it became known that government officials had long collaborated (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-crisis-a-man-made-disaster-report-says.html) with TEPCO executives in covering up (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/asia/tepco-admits-failure-in-acknowledging-risks-at-nuclear-plant.html) safety concerns at Fukushima and, once the meltdowns occurred, in concealing information (http://nuclear-news.net/2013/09/02/tepcos-deliberate-lies-to-conceal-true-level-of-fukushima-radiation/) about the true scale of the disaster and its medical implications.

The July 16th protest and others like it should be seen as a public vote against the government’s energy policy and oversight capabilities. “Japanese have not spoken out against the national government,” said one protestor (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/world/asia/thousands-in-tokyo-protest-the-restarting-of-a-nuclear-plant.html), a 29-year-old homemaker who brought her one-year-old son. “Now, we have to speak out, or the government will endanger us all.”

Skepticism about the government, rare for twenty-first-century Japan, has proved a major obstacle to its desire to restart (http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=JA) the country’s 50 idled reactors. While most Japanese oppose nuclear power, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe remains determined to get the rectors running again in order to reduce Japan’s heavy reliance on imported energy and promote economic growth. “I think it is impossible to promise zero [nuclear power plants] at this stage,” he declared (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201310250045) this October. “From the government’s standpoint, [nuclear plants] are extremely important for a stable energy supply and economic activities.”

Despite such sentiments, Abe is finding it extremely difficult to garner support for his plans, and it is doubtful that significant numbers of those reactors will be coming online anytime soon.


The Explosions Ahead

What these episodes tell us is that people around the world are becoming ever more concerned about energy policy as it affects their lives and are prepared — often on short notice — to engage in mass protests. At the same time, governments globally, with rare exceptions, are deeply wedded to existing energy policies. These almost invariably turn them into targets, no matter what the original spark for mass opposition. As the results of climate change become ever more disruptive, government officials will find themselves repeatedly choosing between long-held energy plans and the possibility of losing their grip on power.

Because few governments are as yet prepared to launch the sorts of efforts that might even begin to effectively address the peril of climate change, they will increasingly be seen as obstacles to essential action and so as entities that need to be removed. In short, climate rebellion — spontaneous protests that may at any moment evolve into unquenchable mass movements — is on the horizon. Faced with such rebellions, recalcitrant governments will respond with some combination of accommodation to popular demands and harsh repression.

Many governments will be at risk from such developments, but the Chinese leadership appears to be especially vulnerable. The ruling party has staked its future viability on an endless carbon-fueled growth agenda that is steadily destroying the country’s environment. It has already faced half-a-dozen environmental upheavals like the one in Ningbo, and has responded to them by agreeing to protestors’ demands (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/world/asia/chinese-officials-cancel-plant-project-amid-protests.html) or by employing brute force. The question is: How long can this go on?

Environmental conditions are bound to worsen (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/jun/07/chinas-environmental-problems-grim-ministry-report), especially as China continues to rely on coal for home heating and electrical power, and yet there is no indication (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/business/energy-environment/chinas-clean-air-drive-likely-to-take-a-long-time.html) that the ruling Communist Party is prepared to take the radical steps required to significantly reduce domestic coal consumption. This translates into the possibility of mass protests erupting at any time and on a potentially unprecedented scale. And these, in turn, could bring the Party’s very survival into question — a scenario (http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2011/05/04/china-political-stability-amid-jasmine-revolutions) guaranteed to produce immense anxiety among the country’s top leaders.

And what about the United States?  At this point, it would be ludicrous to say that, as a result of popular disturbances, the nation’s political leadership is at any risk of being swept away or even forced to take serious steps to scale back reliance on fossil fuels. There are, however, certainly signs of a growing nationwide campaign against aspects of fossil fuel reliance, including vigorous protests (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175618) against hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175648/michael_klare_a_presidential_decision).

For environmental activist and writer Bill McKibben, all this adds up to an incipient mass movement against the continued consumption of fossil fuels. “In the last few years,” he has written (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175737/), this movement “has blocked the construction of dozens of coal-fired power plants, fought the oil industry to a draw on the Keystone pipeline, convinced a wide swath of American institutions to divest themselves of their fossil fuel stocks, and challenged practices like mountaintop-removal coal mining and fracking for natural gas.” It may not have achieved the success of the drive for gay marriage, he observed, but it “continues to grow quickly, and it’s starting to claim some victories.”

If it’s still too early to gauge the future of this anti-carbon movement, it does seem, at least, to be gaining momentum. In the 2013 elections, for example, three cities in energy-rich Colorado — Boulder, Fort Collins, and Lafayette — voted to ban or place moratoriums (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/us/colorado-cities-rejection-of-fracking-poses-political-test-for-natural-gas-industry.html) on fracking within their boundaries, while protests against Keystone XL and similar projects are on the rise.

Nobody can say that a green energy revolution is a sure thing, but who can deny that energy-oriented environmental protests in the U.S. and elsewhere have the potential to expand into something far greater? Like China, the United States will experience genuine damage from climate change and its unwavering commitment to fossil fuels in the years ahead. Americans are not, for the most part, passive people. Expect them, like the Chinese, to respond to these perils with increased ire and a determination to alter government policy.

So don’t be surprised if that green energy revolution erupts in your neighborhood as part of humanity’s response to the greatest danger we’ve ever faced. If governments won’t take the lead on an imperiled planet, someone will.


______________________________________

• Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and conflict studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250023971/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20).  A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation (http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=124).

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175773/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_a_climate_change-fueled_revolution (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175773/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_a_climate_change-fueled_revolution)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 04, 2014, 08:35:11 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Meagre Sierra snowpack is way below average

By BETTINA BOXALL | 4:51PM PST - Friday, January 03, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014jan03ss_zpsae23acf1.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52c75bb9/turbine/la-sci-sn-sierra-snowpack-20140103)
Frank Gehrke, chief of snow surveys for the California Department of Water Resources, left, walks over bare ground on the way to measuring the snowpack
near Echo Summit in the Sierra Nevada. Statewide, the snowpack is just 20% of average for this time of year. — Photo: Steve Yeater/Associated Press.


THE signs aren’t good when the chief of California’s snow survey has to walk over bare ground to take a snowpack measurement in the Sierra Nevada, as Frank Gehrke did Friday near Echo Summit.

Manual and electronic readings up and down the range placed the statewide snowpack at 20% of normal for this date, adding to worries that 2014 could be a bad drought year.

The meager snowpack was not a surprise. Last year was California’s driest in 119 years of records, according to the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno.

Los Angeles and other cities around the state recorded their lowest precipitation amounts for a calendar year. The levels of key reservoirs have been dropping when they should be rising with winter rains.

Governor Jerry Brown has yet to declare a drought emergency. But last month the state Department of Water Resources formed a drought management team.

“While we hope conditions improve, we are fully mobilized to streamline water transfers and take every action possible to ease the effects of dry weather on farms, homes and businesses as we face a possible third consecutive dry year,” department director Mark Cowin said in a statement. “Every Californian can help by making water conservation a daily habit.”

Storage in Lake Shasta and Lake Oroville, the two largest reservoirs in the state, is 57% of average for the date. Several other major reservoirs are in better shape, largely due to supplies left over from December 2012, when storms drenched many parts of California.

Thanks to that month, statewide precipitation in the 2013 water year, which ended September 30th, was 73% of average — the 29th driest on record, according to the regional climate center.

If this winter stays dry, the hardest-hit will likely be farmers in some parts of the San Joaquin Valley and rural communities that depend on wells.

In Southern California, regional water managers say they have enough supplies in reserve to maintain deliveries for the next two years and do not expect to ration sales.

Storage in Pyramid and Castaic lakes, the two state reservoirs that the Southland draws directly from, is slightly above average for the date.

Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County, where the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California stores imported supplies, is nearly three-quarters full.

The snowpack, which is a measurement of the snow’s water content, not its depth, was the lowest in the northern mountains, at 11% of average for the date. It was the highest in the southern Sierra, at 30% of the norm.

The statewide snowpack figure of 20% tied with 2012 as the driest early January reading in 25 years of records.


http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sierra-snowpack-20140103,0,939473.story (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sierra-snowpack-20140103,0,939473.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 04, 2014, 08:35:56 pm

from The Sydney Morning Herald....

2013 confirmed as Australia's hottest year on record

By PETER HANNAM | Friday, January 03, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/smh_2014jan03hot1_zpsfd264366.jpg)
Australia smashed its previous annual heat record in 2013. — Photo: Glenn Campbell.

AUSTRALIA smashed its previous annual heat record in 2013, with a summer heatwave and spring hot spell among the outstanding periods of unusual warmth.

The Bureau of Meteorology on Friday confirmed (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus) that last year was the hottest nationwide in more than a century of standardised records, with mean temperatures 1.2 degrees above the 1961-90 average.

Every state and the Northern Territory recorded at least their fourth warmest year by mean temperatures, underscoring the breadth of 2013's unusual heat. By maximums, all but Victoria and Tasmania recorded their hottest years, with nationwide maximums a full 1.45 degrees above the long-term average, shattering the previous record anomaly of 1.21 degrees set in 2002.

Among the cities, Sydney posted daily maximums averaging 23.7 degrees in 2013, well above the previous high in more than 150 years of records, of 23.4 degrees set in both 2004 and 2005, said Blair Trewin, a senior climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology. Minimum temperatures were the third-highest, at 15.1 degrees, a shade below the 15.2 degrees set in 2007 and 2009.

Melbourne posted its third hottest year, also based on records going back to the 1850s, with maximums averaging 21.5 degrees, shy of 2007's record of 21.8 degrees. The city's minimums averaged 12.2 degrees, second only to 2007's 12.5 degrees.

This January has also started with a blast of heat over inland regions, with Moomba in South Australia recording 49.3 degrees on Thursday, while Birdsville in Queensland clocked up 48.6 degrees.

Walgett, meanwhile, reached 49.1 degrees on Friday, the highest for the state since 1939, the Bureau of Meteorology's Dr Trewin said. Walgett, in fact, was only one many towns to set records on Friday, with others including Moree, Tamworth, Armidale, Narrabri and Coonabarabran in NSW, and St George and Roma in Queensland.

The hot air mass is slowly shifting east. Brisbane may challenge its record high of 43.2 degrees on Saturday, with 41 degrees currently forecast.

"That (forecast) would be factoring in some possibility of a sea breeze," said the bureau's Dr Trewin. "If the sea breeze fails, anything could happen."


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/smh_2014jan03hot2_zps2c4cb924.jpg)
Australia's heat in 2013: no region below average. — Souce: Bureau of Meteorology.

‘Unprecedented year’

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was "an unprecedented year" for Australia not least because it came in a period without an El Nino weather pattern over the Pacific. The so-called El Nino-Southern Oscillation - which typically warms up eastern Australia in particular — remained in neutral through the year, and continues to do so (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/).

"These record high temperatures for Australia in 2013 cannot be explained by natural variability alone," Professor Karoly said. "This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change."

A heatwave in early January, when the national average maximum temperatures reached 40.3 degrees on January 7th, set the country up for a hot year. January was Australia's hottest month on record and December 2012-February 2013 was the hottest summer.[/size]

Neutral conditions

Unusually warm waters around Australia helped keep temperatures well above average in 2013, while many parts of the country recorded their mildest winters on record.

Climate experts say another intense El Nino year, such as in 1998, could challenge even 2013's newly set temperature highs.

Australia's warmth during 2013 extended into spring, with September setting records as the most exceptionally hot month on record. Average maximum temperatures were 3.41 degrees above the long-run average, with South Australia's 5.39 degrees above the norm — a record for any state or territory in any month.

The heat was accompanied by early season bushfires, particularly around Sydney in October, and extensive drought across much of Queensland.

Rainfall nationally averaged 428 millimetres, about 37 millimetres below average, for the year.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/smh_2014jan03hot3_zps75eeec0c.jpg)
Wet in the north west in 2013, mostly dry or average rain elsewhere. — Souce: Bureau of Meteorology.

Capitals, states, world

Aside from Sydney and Melbourne, most other state capitals also had notably hot years.

Canberra and Hobart posted their second warmest years. Perth had its third-warmest year by maximum temperatures, while Darwin and Adelaide had their third-equal warmest. Brisbane, in the midst of a very warm period to start 2014, lagged in 2013 with only its ninth warmest year.

Among the states, NSW had its warmest year, with maximums 1.76 degrees above the long-term average, beating the 1.63 degree anomaly set in 2002, said the bureau's Dr Trewin. By mean temperature, the state was the second warmest on record, behind 2009.

For Victoria, maximum temperatures were 1.3 degrees above normal, placing it third-warmest on records behind the 1.42 degree anomaly set in 2007. Both mean and minimums were also third-highest for the state.

South Australia was exceptional in a remarkable year, with the state setting its highest maximum, mean and minimum temperatures, the bureau said.

Globally, 2013 was the sixth hottest year in records dating back to 1880. No year since 1985 has recorded a below-average global mean temperature reading, and nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the past 12 years, the Bureau of Meteorology said.

The bureau also noted that only one year in the last decade was cooler than average, when a strong La Nina weather pattern over the Pacific kept temperatures low in 2011. The average for each of the rolling 10-year periods from 1995-2004 to 2004-2013 have been among the top 10 records, it said.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/smh_2014jan03hot4_zps57ef3911.jpg)
Many towns across southern Queensland and northern NSW set temperature records on Friday. — Souce: Bureau of Meteorology.

Politic debate

Australia's warmth prompted heat of a political kind, with Greens and Labor saying the records mean the Abbott government is wrong to be attempting to scrap having a price on carbon.

Acting Greens leader Richard di Natale said it went against all evidence for the government to unwind the carbon tax.

"Tony Abbott’s a reckless ideologue who ignores the science and is intent on listening to people who are part of the tinfoil hat brigade," he told reporters in Melbourne.

"The experts right around the world are telling him loudly and clearly that we’ve got a big problem on our hands and we’ve got to start taking action to fix it."

Acting opposition leader Penny Wong said the only people in Australia who didn’t believe in climate change were Mr Abbott and his cabinet.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that was nonsense.

"What we will do is take direct action that will reduce emissions and we’ll meet our 5 per cent reduction target" of 2000 carbon emission levels by 2020, she told reporters in Perth.

"Under Labor’s carbon tax, prices go up and emissions go up so Labor’s response was a nonsense."

Senator Wong said the government’s direct action policy was "a con job you have when you think that climate change is absolute crap".

Environment Minister Greg Hunt was asked to comment directly on the Bureau of Meteorology’s finding that "the past year emphasises that the warming trend continues" but did not respond.


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-confirmed-as-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20140103-308ek.html (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-confirmed-as-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20140103-308ek.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 05, 2014, 02:48:43 pm
(http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/files/2013/12/rsz-Russian-ship-MV-Akademik-Shokalskiy-495x318.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 05, 2014, 03:08:11 pm

Yep....something which was warned about decades ago.

Increased average worldwide temperatures mean more EXTREMES of climate (both hot AND cold) as climate change causes havoc.


Not to worry....when insurance companies (reacting to the effects of climate change) price insurance cover for YOUR property right off the market (way above your ability to pay), you'll be able to tightly screw your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and chant over and over and over again, “it's all bullshit....it isn't happening!”, then hope like hell your home doesn't get damaged in a storm.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 05, 2014, 05:36:38 pm
In the past we had warmer weather than now

we also had an ice age

There are places under the sea that were once dry land

Climate change is all part of our normal cycle of existence

The main problem on planet earth is that we have let the control freaks fuck up all the human minds
with their brain washed agenda.

Hello Ya Fucking Zombies


WHAT WE NEED IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THE BANKS WILL SAVE US hahaha  suckers ;D


The Year the World Bank Fused Sustainable Development with Its Goals for the Future


The World Bank Group set two ambitious goals in 2013, and in the process made clear that one concept will underlie its actions toward both: sustainability.

"Ending extreme poverty within a generation and promoting shared prosperity must be achieved in such a way as to be sustainable over time and across generations," the goals document reads. "This requires promoting environmental, social, and fiscal sustainability. We need to secure the long-term future of our planet and its resources so future generations do not find themselves in a wasteland."

With the goals as a foundation, the Bank Group set a clear direction for its energy work going forward that focuses on exanding energy access, use of renewable energy, and improvement in energy efficiency. In urban development, it launched the Low-Carbon, Livable Cities Initiative to help fast-growing cities in developing countries plan for sustainable development and prepare to finance it. The World Bank Group also established a firm, evidence-supported position on climate change and on the critical need for building resilience and integrating disaster risk management into development to save lives and avoid millions of people falling back into poverty.

In other sectors, the Bank Group expanded sustainable development principles by ramping up work in the use of information and communication technologies, support for public transportation systems, development of climate-smart agriculture, and work in integrated urban water management. A new report on social inclusion dove deeper into the forces behind exclusion that challenge sustainable development and the goal of shared prosperity.

Sustainable Energy for All

In June, the World Bank Board of Directors, representing 188 member countries, put expanding energy access and accelerating energy efficiency and renewable energy at the core of the Bank Group's work in the sector. The energy directions paper embraced the goals of a new international initiative: Sustainable Energy for All , chaired by World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Its goals: by 2030, achieve universal energy access, double the share of renewable energy in the global mix, and double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency.

The energy directions paper also drew global attention for its position on coal: It affirmed that the World Bank Group will “only in rare circumstances” provide financial support for new greenfield coal power generation projects. Several multilateral development banks and developed country governments followed with similar pledges.

The Bank also increased its focus on geothermal exploration, reducing gas flaring, and, through its ESMAP partnership, increasing the use of cleaner cookstoves and helping cities improve their energy efficiency.

Significantly, the directions paper emphasizes energy prices as a key to energy efficiency and growing the share of renewable energy sources in countries' energy mix.

Low-Carbon, Livable Cities

From Africa to Asia, city leaders were talking with the World Bank about resilience and low-carbon development. They want to build a long, successful future, but most of them face a serious challenge: finance. Only 4 percent of the 150 largest cities in developing countries are considered creditworthy in international financial markets, and only 20 percent in local markets.

The World Bank launched its Low-Carbon, Livable Cities Initiative in 2013 to help. It focuses on two vital steps: urban planning, including developing the greenhouse gas accounting and other data and analysis needed for informed decisions, and helping cities raise their credit ratings so they can tap into the finance needed.

The Bank's first City Creditworthiness Training Program for African cities drew 55 senior municipal administrators from 10 countries for a five-day training event in October to get them started. The program's ambitious goal: help 300 cities in developing countries raise their credit ratings over the next four years and begin securing projects and finance. With the many other partners focused on cities, we see momentum growing around support for municipal and city leaders and institutions.

Open Quotes
We need to secure the long-term future of our planet and its resources so future generations do not find themselves in a wasteland.  Close Quotes
World Bank Group Goals Document
Climate Change

Throughout 2013, the World Bank focused attention on large-scale work to address climate change through sustainable development across the sectors. The Turn Down the Heat  reports  provided evidence of the danger: without action to stop it, climate change threatens to roll back decades of development progress, and while everyone will be affected, the poor will suffer the most.

The Bank focused on where climate action can make the greatest difference: building low-carbon, resilient cities by mobilizing finance, urban planning, and expertise; moving forward on climate-smart agriculture to make the food supply more resilient to climate change and help sequester carbon; accelerating energy efficiency, investment in renewable energy, and universal access to energy; and, underpinning these actions, the Bank began looking at how to lay the groundwork for a robust price on carbon and how to ramp up efforts to remove harmful fossil fuel subsidies.

"Get the prices right, get finance flowing, and work where it matters most," Vice President for Sustainable Development Rachel Kyte told world leaders at the climate change conference in Warsaw in November.

Looking Ahead

In the coming year, Vice President Kyte will move to a new role as World Bank Group Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change. The new structure allows expertise from across the entire World Bank Group to be brought together to support solutions for all clients. It is a concrete response to mitigating and adapting to climate change and building investment in resilience through urban planning, sustainable energy and transportation, energy efficient construction, integrated water management, disaster risk management, and climate-smart agriculture.

As 2013 turns into 2014, and with Typhoon Haiyan and the people of the Philippines in our hearts and minds, World Bank Group President Kim's call for plans that are appropriately scaled to the size of the challenge is matched by the requests for partnership. We will do all we can to play our part and encourage others to step up.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/12/23/year-world-bank-fused-sustainable-development-goals-future

Its mostly all about corruption

Corruption, Institutions and Sustainable Development
by Bertrand Venard
When civil servants make decisions based purely on their own personal interests, their decisions are not likely to be of benefit to society




An argument has been rumbling on for years amongst experts concerning the real effect of corruption on a country’s economy. Despite widespread condemnation of corruption, some academics insist that such illegal practices as bribery do in fact grease the wheels of economic growth.
Three main explanations have been given for the potential positive influence of corruption on economic development. It has been suggested that bribes attract a better quality of civil servants. If there is a higher quality of civil servants then, they argue, better economic decisions will be made. Also, bribing implies speeding up the bureaucratic process which could lead to an increase in economic development. Thus, a business leader getting import / export documents quickly from a very busy administration service is likely to be a supporter of the view that paying some extra unofficial fees allows business to be done faster and better. Finally, corruption can be seen as a form of competition for official resources leading to better government services.

The opposing view is that corruption throws sand in the wheels of economic development. The usual definition of corruption as the “sale of government property for private gain” leads to the intuitive conclusion that corruption has a negative influence on economic growth. When civil servants make decisions based purely on their own personal interests, their decisions are not likely to be of benefit to society.

Three main arguments could be given to highlight the negative influence of corruption on the economy. Firstly, the most important loss in economic growth linked to corruption is due to the inefficient allocation of resources. If a Minister makes a decision according to the highest bribe, little attention would be paid to a country’s or state’s needs. The result can be seen, for example, in an unnecessary splendid building or a crass and expensive project which serves as a front for the hidden money that will flow into the pockets of greedy politicians. In addition, to receive bribes, civil servants will create restrictions to economic development. The more complicated are the rules for obtaining a passport or any authorization, the higher is the opportunity to demand bribes, Furthermore, many private businesses, such as foreign investors dislike corruption and therefore avoid investing in corrupt economic sectors or countries. Bad investments, restrictions to business and less private investments will lead to slower economic development.

In a recent academic article published in the October 2013 issue of the Economics Bulletin, my research showed that corruption should categorically be seen as sand in the wheels of economic development.

To arrive at this conclusion I used macroeconomic data collected by the World Bank over a period of ten years in 120 countries, including India. This large research base allowed me to verify that a higher quality of institutional framework implies a lower level of corruption. By institutions, researchers mean the rules of the games. To assess the overall quality of the institutions, measurements were used concerning for example the law, law enforcement or government effectiveness (quality of public services).

Furthermore, the analysis proves that a higher quality of institutional framework implies more sustainable economic development. This conclusion was made possible by using a relatively recent measure of genuine sustainable development instead of the typical GDP / capita to assess economic development. The GDP per capita is too simplistic given that economic development is about sustainable improvements in human welfare and that GDP per capita cannot measure this aspect.

Sustainable development has been defined by the Nobel Prize laureate Kenneth Arrow as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. This is expressed as the sum of the values of investments or disinvestments in each of capital assets. Sustainable economic development therefore takes into account economic development but also includes the changes in the natural resources base and environmental quality as well as the change in the human capital. For example, estimates of the depletion of a variety of natural resources are deducted to reflect the decline in asset values linked with their extraction and harvest. In the same way, pollution damages are deducted.

The result of my research is clear: better institutions lead to higher sustainable economic development. Conversely, the effect of the quality of institutions is stronger when the country has a low quality of institutions than when the country enjoys a high quality in this area.

Finally, the new data shows that the lower the corruption, the higher the sustainable economic development. Thus, corruption is definitely negative for development, and in the long term negative for a development that respects both humans and nature. In countries with low quality institutions, both the institutional quality and the corruption level account for nearly 25% of the variance of the sustainable economic development. Improving the standard of institutions and fighting corruption should be a priority in any country wishing to build a better future for its population in terms of sustainable development.

Bertrand Venard, professor of strategy, Audencia Nantes School of Management, France
http://forbesindia.com/article/special/corruption-institutions-and-sustainable-development/36673/1

 




Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 06, 2014, 02:33:44 pm

Last winter warmest on record

The Dominion Post | 10:31AM - Monday, 06 January 2013

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/9580489s_06jan14_zps3ff16671.jpg)
A graph showing the historic temperature increase. The zero line is the average temperature from 1961-1990.

NEW ZEALAND has emerged from its second-warmest year and warmest winter on record.

But it is bad news, as it follows a global trend which an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report blaming it on "increasing greenhouse gases augmenting the greenhouse effect".

Climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger this morning released the figures.

The above-average temperatures were expected to continue this year, he said.

They show 2013 was the warmest winter nationally since records began in 1870.

Last year was the second-warmest on record nationally with temperatures on average 0.84 degrees Celsius above normal. The only year it was hotter was 1998, when it was 0.89C above average.

Masterton, Omarama, Timaru, Invercargill and the Chatham Islands all had record years.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9580148/Last-winter-warmest-on-record (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9580148/Last-winter-warmest-on-record)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on January 06, 2014, 06:55:30 pm
Quote
Climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger this morning released the figures.

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/07_LaughOutLoud.gif)(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/08_Laugh.gif)

Jim Salinger!  Say no more.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Gecko on January 06, 2014, 08:00:20 pm
shove this up ya date Jim

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9579297/US-hunkers-down-for-polar-vortex





Global warming? No, the planet is getting cooler

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/427980/Global-warming-No-the-planet-is-getting-cooler


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 07, 2014, 09:33:30 am

Doom clouds over Wairarapa's pinot

Winter snow on the Tararua Range and Wairarapa
pinot noir are under threat from climate change.


By TOM HUNT - The Dominion Post | 6:30AM - Tuesday, 07 January 2014

MOZZIES will come up trumps but winter snow on the Tararua Range and Martinborough's famed pinot noir are under threat from global warming.

While leading Wairarapa winemakers say the region's top drop is safe for a while yet, climate scientist Jim Salinger is warning its days could be numbered as temperatures rise.

He said New Zealand just ended its second warmest year since records began in 1870 and last winter was New Zealand's warmest on record.

High temperatures were expected to continue this year and while individual years could experience a drop in average temperatures, New Zealand and the world would get warmer through the years, Dr Salinger said. It was a direct impact of gases increasing the "greenhouse effect", he said. By 2030 to 2040 New Zealand would be about one degree Celsius warmer.

Last year's average temperature was 13.03°C, 0.84°C above average. Some bugs — notably mosquitoes, which got knocked back by annual frosts — would thrive, he said. Water would be more likely to fall on the Southern Alps as rain, rather than snow, and run straight off in winter. Snow that settled would melt earlier, meaning less water coming down the rivers to the plains. Around the lower North Island, winter snow on the Tararua Range "may well become a thing of the past", Dr Salinger said. Wairarapa vineyards might have to switch from grapes that grew in colder climates — such as pinot noir — to varieties such as those now grown in the warmer Hawke's Bay, he said. But Margrain Vineyard winemaker Strat Canning, of Martinborough, was not concerned about his pinot noir grapes in the next five to 10 years.

Mr Canning, who was "not an absolute convert" that global warming existed, said that while pinot noir needed cold conditions, Wairarapa nights would have to get a lot warmer to make the variety ungrowable.

Ata Rangi Vineyard winemaker Helen Masters said it was simplistic to look at entire-year averages in winemaking.

Over winter months the vine canopy was growing but it was not until January till March that pinot noir grapes were going through "tannin development" - the crucial part in grape development.

The 2013 harvest was shaping up to be one of the best vintages in years, she said. Grape growers kept an eye on weather patterns.

As protection, Ata Rangi had long planted varieties such as syrah, cabernet and merlot, which were more suited to warmer weather. Temperatures would need to rise significantly to rule pinot noir out in Wairarapa, she said.

Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills said farmers would adapt: "You either adapt or you die." This century could see tropical fruits or rice grown in northern parts of the country, he said.

Better water storage was needed - dams that could store rain and send it down rivers in a steady flow through the year.

His own Hawke's Bay farm had "100-year variations" in 12 months last year, from the one-in-70-year drought last summer to one of the easiest winters he could remember.

Climate scientist Brett Mullan, of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric research (NIWA), agreed global temperatures were rising due to greenhouse gases.

While Dr Salinger used 22 sites to reach his conclusion that 2013 was the second warmest on record, Niwa used seven sites.

They showed 2013 to be the third-warmest on record.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9582791/Doom-clouds-over-Wairarapas-pinot (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9582791/Doom-clouds-over-Wairarapas-pinot)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 07, 2014, 09:34:42 am
Quote
Climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger this morning released the figures.

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/07_LaughOutLoud.gif)(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/08_Laugh.gif)

Jim Salinger!  Say no more.


Tell us all about YOUR science degree majoring in climatology.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on January 07, 2014, 11:56:40 am
Quote
Climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger this morning released the figures.

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/07_LaughOutLoud.gif)(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/08_Laugh.gif)

Jim Salinger!  Say no more.


Tell us all about YOUR science degree majoring in climatology.

Mmmmm
One thing I haven't done, is move recording devices to suit an agenda - and I don't massage figures and statistics...  Didn't he get arseholed from NIWA for his antics?


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 07, 2014, 11:43:05 pm
North America arctic blast creeps

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25632586




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJo373jNbKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U#t=23

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DEljp5Lb3A#t=43


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 07, 2014, 11:55:22 pm
Quote
Quote
The IPCC concedes for the first time that a
15 year-long period of no significant
warming occurred since 1998 despite a 7%
rise in carbon dioxide (CO2). It also
acknowledges that on a longer (more
climatic) time scale the rate of global
warming has decelerated since 1951, despite
an accompanying 80 ppm or 26% increase in
carbon dioxide (312 to 392 ppm).
The statement represents a significant revision in
IPCC thinking
[/quote

http://www.sepp.org/key_issues/critique_of_ipcc_spm.pdf


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Gecko on January 08, 2014, 02:30:24 pm
tell a lie a few times and it becomes the truth. This self serving bastard is an expert

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on January 09, 2014, 09:44:23 am

(http://www.smfforfree.com/gallery/xtranewscommunity2/97_21_04_11_5_31_50.gif)


re mess # 292

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/20624146/2013-nzs-second-hottest-year-on-record/



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 09, 2014, 09:33:11 pm
Oh no we had a warm winter the expert calls that the canary in the coal mine

we in for warmer weather unless we repent from using energy that and pay Al Gore's carbon credit firm Gore and Blood lot's of money and they will save us from warm weather hahaha what a silly joke  ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 12, 2014, 12:16:53 pm

Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers at loss

By STEVE KILGALLON - The Dominion Post | 8:45AM - Sunday, 12 January 2014

A GROUP of climate-change doubters has left the taxpayer at a substantial six-figure loss after its trust was liquidated following a failed High Court battle with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

A three-year court case over NIWA's recording of historic temperature data ended last year when the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust's final appeal foundered. It was ordered to pay NIWA $89,000 in costs after losing the original case; the appeals court then made another costs order, with the amount yet to be finalised.

The trust didn't pay the first amount, and last month NIWA pursued liquidation, but a trustee has confirmed the trust has no money.

NIWA chief executive John Morgan said it was still considering pursuing two of the trust's key players — former wine journalist Terry Dunleavy, a Justice of the Peace and MBE, and retired lawyer Barry Brill, a former National MP — for the money, but was waiting for the liquidation process to finish.

He added: "On the surface it looks like the trust was purely for the purpose of taking action, which is not what one would consider the normal use of a charitable trust".

NIWA gained an increase on the normal scale used to award costs. Morgan said he "suspected the judge [did that because] he think the merits of their accusations way below a basic threshold".

The trust's deed said its purpose was "promotion of enlightened awareness and understanding of climate [and other environmental issues", research and exchange of ideas.

Trustee Bryan Leyland, when asked about its assets, said: "To my knowledge, there is no money. We spent a large amount of money on the court case, there were some expensive legal technicalities."

Funding had come "from a number of source, which are confidential".

Dunleavey referred calls to Brill, who did not respond to calls.

Both Judge Venning and the Court of Appeal dismissed the trust's claim that it was in the "public interest" to challenge government departments, partly because the trust refused to back up some of its arguments.

The Ministry of Business, Employment and Industry wouldn't comment until liquidator Anthony Pullan's report on January 17th.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9600968/Failed-doubters-trust-leaves-taxpayers-at-loss (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9600968/Failed-doubters-trust-leaves-taxpayers-at-loss)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on January 12, 2014, 03:49:04 pm

 ::)

Lake Michigan Is Full Of Ice Balls The Size Of Boulders
The Huffington Post
By Ryan Grenoble      
Posted: 01/09/2014 4:52 pm EST 
Updated: 01/10/2014 8:51 pm EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/lake-michigan-ice-balls-video_n_4570097.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 12, 2014, 06:20:39 pm
freezing in America,Hot in Australia,Summers been cool here where i live so yes we have climate change it happens every day.Record weather lol hahaha  ;D


Global warming religion nutters got stuck in the ice in the summer time and the main stream whore slite propaganda beast media done their best to change the subject,

They seem to have a bad case of lets not talk about or mention global cooling in Antarctic


(http://MAINSTREAM MEDIA OMITS CLIMATE CHANGE MISSION FROM ANTARCTICA SHIP RESCUE)

(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2014/01/06/akademik-shokalskiy-rescue-reuters.jpg)

Global warming experts adrift in Antarctica since Christmas have finally been rescued, as the valiant efforts to save the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy were documented throughout the mainstream media.
Yet one major detail – what the ship was doing in Antarctica at all – seems to have eluded almost every major media outlet.
Breitbart News previously reported that the New York Times's account of how the Russian ship was finally freed from a large chunk of ice after attempts by a Chinese icebreaker failed mysteriously omitted the original purpose of having 25 professors on board a ship in Antarctica in the first place.
However, the Times was not anywhere near alone in covering only the details of the rescue without any look into why the crew needed rescuing.
CNN's earlier reports  on the ship coincide with this week's news  that the crew on the ship was finally saved by an American icebreaker ship, both mentioning that the crew onboard the Akademik Shokalskiy were, indeed, "on a climate change research ship." It stands out among media sources in pointing this out. The Associated Press, for example, mentions only that the Akademik Shokalskiy was a "research ship." The Washington Post version  of the AP story claims the ship was in Antarctica "re-creating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson’s 1911-13 voyage to Antarctica." NBC News  went with this story, too, as did Reuters  – omitting any mention of climate change research. ABC News went with no mention  of any motive for the ship's being down in the Antarctic at all.
Not every media outlet merely reported a straight story without that key fact; some attempted to find new angles to the story that distracted from the purpose of the voyage and the tragedy that befell it – during Antarctica's summertime, no less – and the terrible optics these implied for the climate change lobby. USA Today , for example, wondered whether there would be any impact on the Antarctic tourist cruise industry thanks to the media's covering a ship stuck in the region (it concluded that no, no cruise companies seem to be worrying about this). National Geographic went with the very bizarre twist  of emphasizing the American rescue ship's horsepower compared both to the Russian ship and its initial Chinese icebreaker savior, admiring the sheer power to break ice of such a ship.
Only publications with "conservative" reputations like the New York Post and the Boston Herald addressed the climate change angle of the story. The Herald ran an editorial  hoping that the incident would increase awareness of the continued growth of Antarctica's polar ice caps, a fact contrary to much global warming speculation. The Post also mentioned  the record-breaking ice in Antarctica's summer and highlighted the ship's goal to document the hypothetical record-breaking melting the scientists expected to find.
The Akademik Shokalskiy first sent out its distress call that it was stuck in ice on Christmas morning and has been lodged there ever since until finally having its passengers saved this week. The Snow Dragon, a Chinese icebreaker, moved closer to the Akademik Shokalskiy but, rather than managing to break a path through which it could escape, the icebreaker got stuck itself. A helicopter the ship brought with it did manage to take some passengers out of the Akademik Shokalskiy before the full rescue. An American vessel, the Polar Star, arrived this week from Australia and is in the process of returning the passengers to Tasmania, where they are expected by mid-January. The ships themselves remain lodged in ice.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/06/Mainstream-Media-Omits-Climate-Change-Mission-From-Antarctica-Ship-Rescue?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 15, 2014, 01:42:48 am
(http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0112/56289_cartoon_main.jpg?197)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on January 17, 2014, 08:14:28 am


then

this is todays  temps sourced from
http://www.worldweathernow.com/

(http://www.smfforfree.com/gallery/xtranewscommunity2/67_20_01_10_3_46_00.gif)

and Now

(http://www.smfforfree.com/gallery/xtranewscommunity2/97_16_01_14_1_03_06.jpeg)
from same source
http://www.worldweathernow.com/



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 23, 2014, 10:16:42 am

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfgate_morfordbanner2.jpg) (http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford)

Fine weather for creepy melancholia

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist (mmorford@sfgate.com) | Tuesday, January 21, 2014

I HAVE enjoyed many terrific birthdays in San Francisco. I have, if memory serves and it sometimes does, nearly always celebrated my January birthday indoors, perhaps luxuriating in a fine hotel, or soaking in a hot, steaming body of water, or rolling around in a very large bed surrounded by whisky and laughter and various slippery things, all due to the chilly and invariably drizzling, foggy, sleeting, flagrantly unpleasant winter weather outside, weather that has always slammed January in San Francisco like a familiar and necessary refrain.

Not this year. This year, I was sunbathing. This year I was splayed out on a tiny, hidden gem of a beach down in Half Moon Bay, sipping champagne, wearing nothing but underwear and a smile alongside a gorgeous companion equally — though significantly more beautifully — unadorned, both of us marveling at the 74-degree temperature, the glass-calm ocean and the utter surreality of the dry, warm, lightly breezed air.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfg_cowell_21jan14_zpsa2276d50.jpg) (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/wp-content/blogs.dir/2467/files/2014/01/cowell.jpg)
Beach day! In January! WTF!

We were, quite obviously, enjoying ourselves immensely. We were gasping at the stillness, the clear and simple heat, the ache and bite of the thirsty sand, repeating over and over that we couldn’t believe it was actually winter even as, deep down, we both could sense it — as I’m sure you can, too: Something is wrong.

It’s not supposed to be like this. It’s not supposed to be warm, dry and sunny in the Bay Area for the entire month of January, and probably February, and most of December, and who knows how much longer. Not here. Not now. Not ever.

Let me be clear: “Something is wrong” isn’t just something you mutter to yourself when the weather blips and flops and pulls a weird little stunt, like a rogue cold snap or fluke heat wave that you know will pass in a few days so hey, let’s get out the sunblock and have a freak barbecue in December.

This kind of wrongness, it’s of a different tang and scale. You can feel it in your bones, your primitive animal nature, your equilibrium. It’s not about weather, per se. It’s about something bigger. Deeper. And quite a bit scarier.

Surely you already know that California is officially in the midst of a severe, unprecedented drought. You’ve probably already read that 2013 was the driest year ever recorded in the state, that it could be the driest winter in 500 years (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2014/01/21/californias-driest-winter-in-500-years.html), that the Sierra snow pack is 17 percent of what it should be, and that many, many people are beginning to get very, very concerned.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfg_drought_21jan14_zpscec73847.jpg) (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/wp-content/blogs.dir/2467/files/2014/01/drought.jpg)
Do you have enough sunblock? You do not have enough sunblock.

What you might not know is a normal January has zero wildfires, whereas this one has already had 150. What you might not know is the predictive models (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/sdo_summary.html) for the entire western side of the country show extremely bleak times ahead. Go ahead, skim through just how scary it really is (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/california-drought-scary-facts-snowpack). If the insane fire danger alone isn’t enough to freak you out, the dour forecasts for all sorts of industries, from agriculture to ski resorts, certainly should.

So really, this is not a column about the weather. This is a column about gut-level disquiet, about seeing the woes of our city (San Francisco hasn’t even reached half of its record-low rainfall for this time of year) and our state, and then widening out that lens of unsettling weirdness to take in the totality of what’s happening, from the brutal (and equally unprecedented) “polar vortex” slamming the rest of the country, to extreme disasters, such as Supertyphoon Haiyan, the strongest storm ever recorded at landfall, which killed 6,000 people in the Philippines.

It recently snowed in Cairo for the first time in 112 years. In June of last year, in Death Valley, they hit the hottest temperature — 129 degrees — ever recorded for that month.

We are, at our core, blood-soaked, spit-infused, bone-hammered animals. We are, behind all our air-conditioned defenses and numbed-out obsession with technology and loneliness, still somehow attuned to the rhythms of the planet, still a living organism deeply interwoven with, and desperately dependent upon, a much larger organism. What happens to her, happens to us. We can feel it. Even if we caused it. Maybe because we caused it. Can you really separate?

Let’s take one paragraph right here to openly slap back the mortifying idiocy, the dangerous ignorance of the Tea Party, Fox News and all tiny-brained global warming deniers everywhere, and point instead to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent climate report, by far its most shocking and damning yet. Conclusion: It’s no longer a matter of when, but how bad.

Which is to say: dramatic climate change is no longer even remotely preventable (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/sdo_summary.html). It’s here. It will be here for centuries. And yes, most of what’s happening is very much our fault. It’s now only a question of severity, adaptation and survival.

Do you care? Do you feel it? I bet you do. Your very body, your cells, your electromagnetic field and neural wiring, they all understand that nature is not a linear, easily predictable force, particularly when we’ve been slapping her, mauling her, cramming billions of tons of toxic waste into her and generally behaving towards the Earth the way a meth addict behaves toward a mixed green salad. A creeping sense of resigned doom pervades the blood.

Is there any good news? Sort of. Advances in conservation, energy use and environmental policy are happening every day. Wind, solar and thermal power are growing fast, though still remain light years behind oil and coal. There’s still a chance California could be deluged by rain and snow in March. Our fatal game of Russian Roulette with the planet might once again leave us standing, quivering and stupid, one more time.

The bad news? Science and common sense agree: It’s all too little, too late (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/evidence.asp). Short of an immediate, radical overhaul of international energy usage on a scale unprecedented in human history, we’re headed for some vicious struggles for survival indeed. Check that: They’re already here.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfg_1952sunbathing_21jan14_zps5579c08c.jpg) (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/wp-content/blogs.dir/2467/files/2014/01/1952-Sunbathing-on-the-ba-006.jpg)
Nothing left to do but sigh.

So, what do you do? How do you respond? Do you profess utter powerlessness and hope someone, somewhere figures it all out in time? Do you enjoy the random spoils of odd weather while you can, praying the wildfires don’t wipe out your home or the polar vortex doesn’t kill your grandparents, and store up on bottled water and good porn and Jesus? Do you shrug it off and keep dancing?

Maybe you make a nervous joke out of it, a game, tell everyone to “shower with a friend!” as you work to cut back on your water usage by 20 percent, even though you know upwards of 85 percent of all water in California goes for farming (less than 10 percent is residential), and most of that goes to grow grain, to feed cattle, to feed our gluttonous meat/fast-food obsessions, to feed our obesity epidemic which feeds our love of pharmaceuticals and fad diets and hoping someone else figures it all out in time. Ah, the circle of life.

Maybe you realize, deep in your bones, it’s no longer possible to turn it all around, and that there’s only so much you can do to adapt to severe unpredictability and the fact that Mother Nature always, nay always bats last. We’d try to whistle past the graveyard, if our lips weren’t so damn chapped.


Email: Mark Morford (etc@markmorford.com)

Mark Morford (http://www.markmorford.com) on Twitter (http://twitter.com/markmorford) and Facebook (http://facebook.com/markmorfordyes).

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/01/21/fine-weather-for-creepy-melancholia (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/01/21/fine-weather-for-creepy-melancholia)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 29, 2014, 03:12:39 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

California's drought, times three

The state is facing three distinct water crises, each
requiring its own emergency and long-term responses.


LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL | Sunday, January 26, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014jan26fla_zps2130d97a.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52e2fbbc/turbine/la-ed-new-drought-20140126)
Seen above on Tuesday, a tree that is usually at the banks of Folsom Lake outside Sacramento is now several hundred feet away from the water. In his
drought emergency declaration, Governor Jerry Brown asked Californians to cut their water usage by 20%. — Photo: John G. Mabanglo/EPA.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIANS are facing not one drought but three, interconnected yet distinct, each bringing its own hazards and each requiring its own emergency and long-term responses.

The first drought is regional, caused by the lack of rain in our own mountains and our own backyards. In normal winters — or rather those we have come to accept as normal — storms blow south from the Gulf of Alaska, churning in a counterclockwise direction and keeping much of their stored water in the air until they move inland from the west and run smack into the San Gabriel Mountains. When they lack enough energy to push over the peaks, they dump their water — in torrents that rush down the mountainsides, feed seasonal rivers such as the Los Angeles, replenish groundwater basins and, occasionally, cause havoc.

The winter rain falls not just on the slopes but throughout the basin and the valleys that make up the geographic triangle outlined by the mountains and the coastline. That's the water that soaks into our backyards and landscapes and lessens the need for sprinklers. It's the water that also soaks into natural oaklands and scrublands, and when it goes missing — as it has for three winters now — the ground dries out, the trees and chaparral get dangerously crisp and wildfire becomes an increasing danger.

That's the hazard Southern California faces in the coming months. The recent Colby fire north of Glendora may have been started, as prosecutors allege, by three men carelessly smoking marijuana in the foothills, but it spread quickly and frighteningly because of the tinder-dry conditions. Without substantial rainfall in February and March, we can expect more fires like that one in the summer and fall fire seasons.

Other than extra caution by residents and vigilance and expertise on the part of professional firefighters, there is little Southern Californians can do about this regional drought beyond hoping for rain.

The second drought is different but related. The same Gulf of Alaska system that usually sends rain south of the Tehachapis also sends storms across the Central Valley and into the higher, colder Sierra Nevada, where the water falls as snow and forms California's greatest natural reservoir, releasing its water later in the year in manageable, and useful, seasonal pulses. More often than not, that's the water that comes out of the tap here, brought to Los Angeles households from Eastern Sierra snowmelt through the Owens River and the aqueduct for which the centenary was celebrated a few months ago; and it's the water that comes to us, and to all of Southern California, plus Silicon Valley, much of the coast and Central Valley fields and homes, from Western Sierra snowmelt that flows from the Sacramento River to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and to the California Aqueduct.

The Northern California drought does little to affect fire danger here but a great deal to affect the supply of water to homes and businesses. Southern California is unlikely to go thirsty this year because it has water reserves banked around the region. But it's worth noting that although the winter snowpack is down by 80%, Governor Jerry Brown's drought declaration called for only a 20% decrease in water use.

It may seem counterintuitive to let lawns turn brown and gardens dry up in such dangerous conditions. But conservation is nevertheless crucial to address the problems caused by the drought in the Sierra.

The third drought is occurring across the Western United States, and especially in the Rocky Mountains, which feed the Colorado River and by extension the other major component, after the Central Valley, of California's agricultural wealth. It also forms a major part of Los Angeles' water portfolio.

Because these three droughts are interconnected, we rarely suffer from one without dealing with the others, and this year's situation is no different. The vast majority of Californians rely on water that falls in other parts of the state, or even outside the state, and although the multiple sources make water more secure for all of us, shortages usually come all at once.

Southern California must prepare for the future by recapturing more of the rainwater that in wetter years still runs, unused, to the sea. It must do even more than is already being done to clean and reuse urban water. We will likely need a storm water bond, tax or other measure. We may have to build new dams to store water for future use without drying up rivers and destroying the ecosystem, as dams in California historically have done. A statewide water bond, which voters will consider in November, should help clean up groundwater basins here to allow residents to rely more on local supplies and less on the Sierra — although distant snowmelt must always be a part of the entire state's water portfolio.

That means diverting some of the delta's water with pumps that do less damage to endangered fish and rely less on earthquake-vulnerable levees. The kind of system envisioned by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan would help all parts of California deal with global climate change and its inevitable result: precipitation that falls on the Sierra less like the snow that generations have come to rely on and more like the rain that comes, when it does, to Southern California in unmanageable torrents.

These measures are needed not merely for drought years like this one. But the trio of droughts serves as a reminder of the urgent need for action — to plan, to conserve, to store, to reuse, to transport and to share the state's most precious resource.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-new-drought-20140126,0,7229717.story (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-new-drought-20140126,0,7229717.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 29, 2014, 03:12:55 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Republicans seek to tap California drought for a political edge

Midterm election campaigns attempt to link the state's water crisis to
Democratic environmental policies, and promise relief for farmers.


By EVAN HALPER | 10:58PM PST - Sunday, January 26, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014jan26flb_zps662b253d.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52e603a4/turbine/la-apphoto-dry-california-governor3-jpg-20140126)
A visitor to Folsom Lake in California's Central Valley walks his dog down a boat ramp that is now several hundred yards from the water's edge.
At a mere 17% capacity, the lake has become a visual symbol of California's water crisis. — Photo: Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press.


WASHINGTON — Beleaguered and outnumbered, California Republicans think they may have found a crucial ally — drought.

Up and down the state's increasingly dry Central Valley, Republicans have pounded away at the argument that Democratic policies — particularly environmental rules — are to blame for the parched fields and dwindling reservoirs that threaten to bankrupt farms and wipe out jobs.

In his latest campaign video, Republican Doug Ose stands in the middle of dried-out Folsom Lake. At a mere 17% capacity, the usually scenic reservoir favored by boaters and sunbathers looks like the set of "Mad Max". As the camera pans, Ose declares, "We're facing a real crisis."

"Where's our representative?" he demands, referring to Representative Ami Bera, a freshman Democrat elected in 2012 on a razor-thin margin, whom he hopes to unseat this fall.

House Speaker John A. Boehner joined the effort recently, flying to Bakersfield and promising to shepherd legislation through the House to divert some of the state's dwindling water supply to farmers.

"When you come to a place like California, and you come from my part of the world, you just shake your head and wonder what kinds of nonsense does the bureaucracy do out here?" the Ohio Republican said, referring to the long-running diversion of millions of gallons from farms to the habitats of endangered fish.

"How you can favor fish over people is something that people from my part of the world never understand," he said.

Whether the politics of water can help the Republican Party make gains in this year's congressional elections remains to be seen. Republicans have bet on the water issue in the past to little avail. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, for example, made attacks on water-related environmental regulations a major element of her unsuccessful campaign against Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010.

Already, however, the renewed partisan focus on the issue has complicated Governor Jerry Brown's job, as his administration scrambles to develop emergency plans to keep water flowing to cities where the spigots of homes and businesses are in danger of running dry.

And this time may be different.

Across the state's agricultural heart, crisis is bearing down. Laborers face unemployment, and the owners of small companies that rely on a robust farming industry are panicked. The GOP is leveraging their anger.

Until now, "nobody cared," said Tony Quinn, an editor of the California Target Book, which handicaps political races. "In a drought, all of a sudden there is rationing, there is no boating, no fishing. People are told not to flush when they pee in the toilet. We'll be going through all that. People begin to pay attention."

"Republicans are looking for an issue in this very Democratic state," Quinn added. "Congressional candidates throughout the Central Valley are going to seize on this."

Indeed, Republican strategists hope the issue could help in half a dozen districts in and around the Central Valley. In addition to Ose's race against Bera, Republican strategists hope anger over water restrictions could help them with otherwise uphill challenges to Democratic incumbents Jerry McNerney of Stockton and Jim Costa of Fresno.

Water politics could also help Republicans defend incumbents who might be vulnerable if Brown appears headed to a lopsided victory. Democrats have eyed three Central Valley Republicans — Representatives David Valadao of Hanford, Jeff Denham of Turlock and Devin Nunes of Tulare — as possible targets.

The political advantage exists even though the plan Boehner unveiled last week, which would give more water to farms and less to habitat conservation, stands almost no chance of becoming law. The Brown administration dismisses the proposal as crude and potentially catastrophic, and its odds in the Democratic-controlled Senate are about nil.

Leading Democrats argue that the Republican proposals ignore the reality that California's water woes are complex and caused by diverse issues. Among them are gambles that agricultural interests took when they invested heavily in operations that rely on unstable water supplies.

Relaxing of endangered species protections would not necessarily free up any water amid a drought this severe. Moreover, Democrats note, proposals to fund large water conservation and recycling programs have foundered in the GOP-controlled House.

"This is a political stunt," said Representative George Miller (Democrat-Martinez), a veteran of the state's water tensions. "Their argument is so stupid."

The drought has already complicated Brown's efforts to win approval for his long-range plan to build two 35-mile tunnels that would divert as much as 67,500 gallons of water every second from the Sacramento Delta to thirsty cities and farms to the south.

The latest move by Central Valley farmers and their Republican allies to get more water in these scarce times is sure to increase tensions with Northern California voters and their representatives, including Miller, among whom opposition to diverting delta water appears to be hardening.

State officials also worry that the measure Boehner is promoting could upend decades of carefully built alliances among farmers, water agencies, environmentalists, fishing communities and others that are the backbone of the state's water system.

"What they are doing does not serve a purpose," said state Natural Resources Secretary John Laird. "It's not as if we have water left to argue over. We need to triage.

"Some parts of the state are going to have to depend on the kindness of other parts of the state" to get water for their most basic needs, Laird said. "This is not the time to start a fight."

For Boehner and his allies, however, those complexities may be beside the point. As Democrats struggle to explain the myriad policies, contracts and stakeholder agreements that have left the state unprepared to deal with a historic dry spell, Republicans are offering simpler explanations that appeal to the inland voters they covet.

"The Man-Made California Drought" is the title of a Web page devoted to water at the House Committee on Natural Resources' site. It prominently features clips from "The Valley Hope Forgot", a multipart harangue against California water policy by the Fox network's Sean Hannity.

Nunes, who stood alongside Boehner in Bakersfield, brushes aside Laird's advice to avoid a fight.

"Laird and the others are all disciples of the NRDC and Sierra Club," said the congressman, referring to the National Resources Defense Council and the environmental group founded by conservationist John Muir. "They sit in San Francisco drinking $500 bottles of wine, and they want us out of production."

Nunes, who once brought a bowl of fish to a hearing to make the point that they are treated better than farmers, accepts that pumping more water to farms right now may not be feasible. But the Republican proposal stipulates the pumping would start once water levels are high enough.

"The people who built the water system designed it to withstand a five-year drought," he said. "But we have just been letting water go."

And at least some Democrats are taking no chances. Shortly after Boehner's visit, Costa signaled he planned to sign on to the Republican effort.

His re-election could hinge on it.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-drought-politics-20140127,0,4166887,full.story (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-drought-politics-20140127,0,4166887,full.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 01, 2014, 01:27:02 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

California snowpack hits record low

Underscoring the severity of a statewide drought, snowpack measurements
hit a record low as Governor Jerry Brown meets with water leaders.


By BETTINA BOXALL | 5:55PM PST - Thursday, January 30, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014jan30csp_zpsfdff85b9.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52eb02f3/turbine/la-apphoto-snowpack-survey4-jpg-20140130)
Frank Gehrke, chief of the California Cooperative Snow Survey Program for the Department of Water Resources, leaves a snow-covered meadow
after the second snow survey of the year near Echo Summit, California. Gehrke said that while recent snow fall will help bolster the depleted
snowpack, it is not enough to affect the water supply. — Photo: Associated Press.


EVEN WITH the first significant storm in nearly two months dropping snow on the Sierra Nevada, Thursday's mountain snowpack measurements were the lowest for the date in more than a half-century of record keeping.

At 12% of average for this time of year, the dismal statewide snowpack underscored the severity of a drought that is threatening community water supplies and leaving farm fields in many parts of California barren.

As snow survey crews worked, Governor Jerry Brown met with Southern California water leaders as part of a series of drought meetings he is holding around the state.

"Every day this drought goes on, we're going to have to tighten the screws on what people are doing," Brown said in brief remarks before the private meeting with regional water managers at the downtown Los Angeles headquarters of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Brown earlier this month declared a state drought emergency and called on all Californians to cut water use by 20%. "Make no mistake," he said Thursday. "This drought is a big wake-up call and a reminder that we do depend on natural systems. It's not just going to the store."

Thanks to billions of dollars of ratepayer investments in regional water storage projects and conservation programs, Southern California is in a stronger position than much of the rest of the state. "We spent 20 years preparing for a drought like this," MWD General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger said.

The agency, which supplies the Southland with water from the Colorado River and Northern California, has no plans to impose rationing this year. But Kightlinger is asking the MWD board to issue a formal alert, emphasizing Brown's call for conservation, and wants the board to dip into the agency's general reserve fund to double annual conservation spending to $40 million.

The money would fund public outreach and consumer rebates for water-efficient appliances and sprinkler systems.

Kightlinger also said MWD would be open to forgoing some water shipments and transferring them to needy districts in other parts of the state if enough storms come along in the next two months to raise the level of depleted reservoirs upstate.

But "right now we don't even have those supplies in Northern California," he said. "Frankly, I've never seen anything like it."

MWD officials and Brown also discussed a $25-billion proposal to replumb the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta with a new diversion point and two water tunnels. Brown and major water contractors including MWD are pushing the project as the best way to ease endangered species restrictions that have cut water deliveries to the Southland and San Joaquin Valley agriculture.

When President Obama this week phoned Brown about the drought, Brown said he told the president that some "lower level" federal officials involved in the project "are not being helpful. Quite the opposite."

Kightlinger, elaborating later, said the Brown administration and water contractors were frustrated by the pace of review by federal agencies that must approve the project.

"We've been working on it now over seven years," Kightlinger said. "We've spent $200 million-plus dollars in planning alone and we need high-level federal engagement to wrap this up."

Until Thursday, the lowest statewide snowpack measurement at this time of year was 21% of average, in 1991 and 1963. The one bit of good news Thursday was that it was snowing in the Sierra.

The storm arrived Wednesday evening and, combined with a second wave of moisture Thursday night, was expected to dump one to two feet of snow on slopes that have been so bare that mountain bikers were climbing them in the middle of January.

The U.S. Forest Service on Thursday issued an oddly welcome warning of backcountry avalanche danger between the Yuba and Ebbetts passes "due to new heavy snow slabs."

Dawn Johnson, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Reno, said two low pressure systems in recent days managed to split in half the persistent high pressure ridge off the West Coast that has blocked winter storms.

"That finally opened up the door" for a track of tropical moisture from Hawaii, she said. A cold front from the Gulf of Alaska turned the initial rain to snow in the mountains and foothills. The system, extending from the Oregon border, was largely spent by the time it reached Southern California and forecasters said the Los Angeles area would get no more than a tenth of an inch of rain.

Although another low pressure system could bring precipitation to the California coastline Sunday night, Johnson said there was no way of knowing if the storm door will remain open next month, or slam shut.


CLICK HERE (http://latdevelopers.com/graphics/charts/reservoirs.html) to view an interactive graphic showing the state of California's water reservoirs.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-brown-water-20140131,0,3070851.story (http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-brown-water-20140131,0,3070851.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 01, 2014, 01:28:52 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Want to cut Arctic warming in half? Curb emissions now, study says

By TONY BARBOZA | 10:07AM PST - Friday, January 31, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014jan31iaig_zpsba078e85.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52ebdcc7/turbine/la-sci-sn-arctic-warming-sea-ice-carbon-emissi-001)
Icebergs float in a bay off Ammassalik Island, Greenland. — Photo: John McConnico/Associated Press.

GLOBAL WARMING is changing the Arctic so quickly that experts say we should expect an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer within just a few decades.

But a group of scientists says there is a way to spare the Arctic from more disastrous climate change. In a new paper, they say that reducing global carbon emissions now could cut Arctic warming nearly in half by century’s end.

Society already has released enough carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere that over the next few decades temperatures in the Arctic will continue to rise two to three times faster than in Earth’s middle latitudes, according to the study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000162/pdf).

“Over the next 20 or 30 years, the fix is in,” said James Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead author of the scientific paper. “That means more access to drilling, shipping and resource exploration. But it's not very good news for polar bears or walruses that depend on the sea ice habitat.”

Starting mid-century, society’s decisions about how to address climate change could begin to kick in, Overland said.

If carbon emissions continue on their current trajectory, by century’s end temperatures across the Arctic could rise by 23.4 degrees in the late fall and 9 degrees in the late spring, according to the study, which used computer models to predict the effects of different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.

But if civilization levels off its emissions by mid-century, Arctic-wide warming would be limited to 12.6 degrees in the late fall and 5.4 degrees in the late spring, according to the paper accepted for publication in the journal Earth’s Future (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000162/abstract).

The Arctic is hypersensitive to climate change and is seeing some of the earliest and most severe effects because of a vicious circle known as “Arctic amplification.”

As Arctic sea ice shrinks to record lows (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/27/science/la-sci-sn-arctic-sea-ice-20120827), it is reflecting less sunlight and leaving behind more heat-absorbing ocean water. Thawing permafrost (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/12/science/la-sci-sn-carbon-sunlight-permafrost-20130211) is increasing heat storage on land and raising temperatures even higher.

Already, the average annual temperature in the Arctic is 3.6 degrees higher than it was between 1971 and 2000, double the rise in lower latitudes during the same period, according to the study.

Overland conducted the research with three other scientists from the University of Washington, the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, and the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The scientists wrote that their research “makes a strong case to begin mitigation activities for greenhouse gases,” adding that stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions by mid-century “is a plausible target if decisive actions are begun soon.”


http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-arctic-warming-sea-ice-carbon-emissions-20140130,0,6296635.story (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-arctic-warming-sea-ice-carbon-emissions-20140130,0,6296635.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 01, 2014, 01:30:00 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

California drought prompts first-ever ‘zero water allocation’

By BETTINA BOXALL | 2:04PM PST - Friday, January 31, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014jan31cd_zps0a4820be.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52ec1e61/turbine/la-me-ln-20140131-002)
The State Water Project's zero allocation, which comes amid a crippling drought, is the first in the sprawling system's 54-year history.
 — Photo: Nhat V. Meyer/McClatchy-Tribune.


OFFICIALS on Friday said that for the first time ever, the State Water Project that helps supply a majority of Californians may be unable to make any deliveries except to maintain public health and safety.

They also said they were cutting releases from large reservoirs in the northern part of the state to preserve supplies in the face of what could be the worst drought in modern California history.

“It’s about holding back water so we’ve got it tomorrow,” said Chuck Bonham, director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The zero allocation for the State Water Project is the first in the sprawling system’s 54-year history. It will be reassessed monthly and could be adjusted upward if storms drop snow and rain on the parched state in the next three months.

Most of the contractors that get water from the project have other sources, such as storage and groundwater, and state Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin stressed that the delivery cut did not mean faucets would run dry.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the state project’s largest customer, has said it has enough supplies in storage to get the Southland through this year without mandatory rationing.

Cowin said it was necessary to take aggressive action now to ensure water would be available later for people, farms and fish. “This is not a coming crisis... This is a current crisis,” he said.

The State Water Resources Control Board announced that it is temporarily dropping requirements for reservoir releases to maintain environmental standards in California’s water hub, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The board is also telling junior rights holders in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins that they will have to curtail diversions from rivers and streams. Officials said most of the 5,800 junior diverters, who are primarily agricultural, have access to groundwater or other sources.

In another step, the board is limiting pumping from the delta to exports necessary for human health and safety, an action that in effect eliminates irrigation deliveries from the delta to the San Joaquin Valley.

Cowin called the actions “largely unprecedented but also unavoidable.”


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-drought-zero-water-allocation-20140131,0,4678128.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-drought-zero-water-allocation-20140131,0,4678128.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on February 03, 2014, 01:10:37 am
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uJzYbm5wTI0/UsrcoGKbRoI/AAAAAAAATt0/paCfa-cVDoM/s1600/Cartoon+of+the+day+423.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 06, 2014, 12:52:56 pm

from The New Zealand Herald....

New storms create new misery for UK southwest

AFP | 9:04AM - Thursday, February 06, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/nzh_DevonStormDamage_06feb14_zps3f3b0b0b.jpg)
Workmen assess a huge hole exposing ground services and exposed railway track after the sea wall
collapsed in Dawlish, England. — Photo: Associated Press.


MORE THAN 8000 homes are without power in southwest England after fresh storms battered the region, sending huge waves crashing onto the coastline and damaging sea defences.

The main train service connecting the counties of Devon and Cornwall with the rest of Britain were suspended after part of the sea wall under the coastal railway line collapsed.

Local member of parliament Ben Bradshaw said the line closure was a "devastating blow" to the regional economy.

The Environment Agency issued nine severe flood warnings for the southwest, meaning there was a "danger to life", and Prime Minister David Cameron was due to chair a meeting of the government's emergency committee Cobra.

The committee has been meeting almost daily over the past few weeks, as storms have brought flooding to much of Britain, including to the southwest county of Somerset, where one village has been cut off for a month.

Speaking in parliament before Wednesday's meeting, Cameron announced an additional £100 million for flood repairs and maintenance over the coming year.

"Whatever is required, whether it is dredging work on the rivers Tone and Parrett, whether it is support for our emergency services, whether it is fresh money for flood defences, whether it is action across the board, this government will help those families and get this issue sorted," he said.

The electricity distribution network that covers Devon, Cornwall and Somerset said about 8200 properties still remained without power on Wednesday morning.

"It's all weather-related. There's been absolutely no let-up," a spokeswoman for Western Power Distribution told AFP.

A further 60,000 homes had been reconnected overnight, according to the prime minister.

Meteorologists at the national weather centre, the Met Office, warned of further heavy rain and gale force winds to come on Wednesday and through to the weekend.

Britain has been lashed by storms and heavy rain throughout the winter, with parts of southern England seeing the wettest January since records began in 1910.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11197504 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11197504)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 06, 2014, 08:16:52 pm

Lots of pictures of Global Warming/Climate Change's handiwork here....

Crumbling homes are falling into the sea after battering by huge waves forced families to flee for their lives as railway line and coastal wall were destroyed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552027/Britains-coastline-battered-storms-hurricane-force-winds-sweep-Atlantic.html)

(Daily Mail — 7:00AM GMT, Wednesday, 05 February, 2014)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 07, 2014, 11:12:33 am

From the Los Angeles Times....

California's severe drought exposes civilization's thin veneer

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Thursday, February 06, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014feb06a_zpsc654ab5f.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52f33579/turbine/la-na-tt-californias-severe-drought-20140205)

THE severe drought in California and much of the West is a reminder that civilized life is a paper-thin veneer that overlays the deep upheavals of nature. Humans carry on blithely, holding fast to the illusion that the natural world can be tamed and exploited with no unavoidable consequences. Then we get slammed by a hurricane, a flood, a tornado, a wildfire, a drought or a freezing polar vortex that lets us know how wrong we are.

Yet, after each disaster, we forget again — which is the reason so few of us give any sustained attention to the climate change peril. It is similar to the way we think about death. We know it’s coming, but we would drive ourselves crazy if we thought about it all the time. As a result, we revert to living in the moment or counting on promises of heaven.

With climate change, either we suspect it is too late to do anything about it or we just deny it is real. And even the vast majority of climate scientists who know it is a real phenomenon are quick with the caveat that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change with complete certainty. Nevertheless, now that extreme weather is hammering us with increasingly regularity, it is hard to argue that a profound shift is not underway.

The drought in California’s agricultural lands may simply be part of a natural cycle that has kicked in independently rather than being a result of global warming caused by the sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 levels in the industrial age. Whatever the case may be, experts say it has been 500 years since it has been this dry. The last time it happened, the native cultures in the West were severely disrupted. The question facing us today is how much disruption our more complex society can handle.

In the agricultural regions of California, where half of the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables are grown, many farmers are not planting crops this year because there is no water. Cattle and sheep are being sold off by ranchers because there is no grass. More than 25 million people who rely on dwindling local water sources are being told not to expect rescue because state and federal water reserves are quickly running out.

Nevada, New Mexico and other western states face a similar crisis. Unemployment is rising among agricultural workers and American consumers will soon see food prices shoot up as well, as the bounty of the land dries up.

A half millennium ago, the Anasazi people lived in marvelous cliff dwellings scattered throughout the American Southwest. No doubt the Anasazi expected their thriving culture to go on forever. The gods they prayed to lived in the sacred mountains and in the stars of the night sky and, like all humans, they prayed to those gods for bountiful harvests and safety in storms. But all their prayers could not protect them. Something made the ancient ones abandon their settlements — most likely a 300-year drought that began in the 12th century — and the Anasazi vanished.

As the consequences of climate change become more stark and real, it is a delusion to think we are immune from existential change. Our civilization is more complex and technologically advanced than the Anasazi culture, but that may only make us more vulnerable. Those ancient natives could take their knowledge of simple agriculture and move on to seek more fertile ground and abundant water elsewhere.

When our farmers can no longer feed us, where will we go?


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-californias-severe-drought-20140205,0,3634223.story (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-californias-severe-drought-20140205,0,3634223.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on February 08, 2014, 12:52:25 pm

re mess # 314

THE severe drought in California and much of the West is a reminder that civilized life is a paper-thin veneer that overlays the deep upheavals of nature. Humans carry on blithely, holding fast to the illusion that the natural world can be tamed and exploited with no unavoidable consequences. Then we get slammed by a hurricane, a flood, a tornado, a wildfire, a drought or a freezing polar vortex that lets us know how wrong we are.


http://www.history.com/topics/dust-bowl/videos#america-black-blizzard

http://www.history.com/topics/dust-bowl/photos#the-dust-bowl


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on February 10, 2014, 08:14:10 pm
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/The-Conversation/2014/02/09/usa-snowfall-google-earth.jpg)

Over Two Thirds of Continental U.S. Covered in Snow

More than two thirds of the continental United States is currently covered in snow, according to new data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
With 67.4% of the contiguous United States now covered with snow, up from 48.1% last month, the so called Polar Vortex would appear to be leaving Global Warming fear mongers lost in a vortex all their own.
Contrast current data and images with these words from Dr. David Viner.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Not to be deterred in his battle against what some view as more climate fabulists, than scientists, Mark Steyn takes on a "Ship of Fools" in The Spectator this month.
Yes, yes, just to get the obligatory ‘of courses’ out of the way up front: of course ‘weather’ is not the same as ‘climate’; and of course the thickest iciest ice on record could well be evidence of ‘global warming’, just as 40-and-sunny and a 35-below blizzard and 12 degrees and partly cloudy with occasional showers are all apparently manifestations of ‘climate change’; and of course the global warm-mongers are entirely sincere in their belief that the massive carbon footprint of their rescue operation can be offset by the planting of wall-to-wall trees the length and breadth of Australia, Britain, America and continental Europe.
Big Climate is slowly being crushed by a hard, icy reality: if you’re heading off to university this year, there has been no global warming since before you were in kindergarten. That’s to say, the story of the early 21st century is that the climate declined to follow the climate ‘models’.
Really, there's little that's more unsightly than an adult so called scientist crying test tubes full of tears over their broken model. Unfortunately for many, that's precisely what recent weather patterns have done - shatter the models these so called scientists have been employing in their war on capitalism for decades.
How ironic that a Polar Vortex was just what was needed to heat up the climate war!

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/02/09/Over-2-3-of-US-Covered-in-Snow-despite-Snowfall-being-a-thing-of-the-past

But theres more lol

(http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i6NIoO1oD88c.jpg)

Global-Warming Slowdown Due to Pacific Winds, Study Shows


Stronger Pacific Ocean winds may help explain the slowdown in the rate of global warming since the turn of the century, scientists said.

More powerful winds in the past 20 years may be forcing warmer seas deeper and bringing cooler water to the surface, 10 researchers from the U.S. and Australia said today in the journal Nature. That has cooled the average global temperature by as much as 0.2 degree Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) since 2001.

Scientists have been trying to find out why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas emissions have surged to a record. Today’s paper elaborates on a theory that deep seas are absorbing more warmth by explaining how that heat could be getting there.

“The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 degree Celsius, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001,” the researchers wrote. They’re led by Matthew England, a professor of oceanography at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in September that the average temperature since 1998 has increased at less than half the rate since 1951. The world has warmed by an average 0.05 degree per decade since 1998, compared with the 1951-2012 average of 0.12 degree a decade, the UNIPCC said.

Hiatus Persisting

“This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the tradewind trends continue; however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate,” the authors of today’s study said. “Volcanoes and changes in solar radiation can also drive cooler decades against the backdrop of ongoing warming,” they said.

The scientists used computer models and weather data to determine the effect of the stronger winds on ocean circulation. Other institutions involved in the research include the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, the University of Hawaii, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization.

A paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in May found that ocean waters below 700 meters (2,300 feet) have absorbed more heat since 1999. A separate study in Nature in August linked the hiatus to a cooling of surface waters in the eastern Pacific, and today’s research builds on that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 14, 2014, 04:15:15 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Ice storm paradox: It's colder because the Earth is warmer

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Thursday, February 13, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014feb13a_zps6e96279c.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-52fc62f7/turbine/la-na-tt-ice-storm-paradox-20140212)

WITH the American South locked in a deep freeze (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ice-storm-atlanta-georgia-20140212,0,3879249.story), you can be sure that plenty of the folks suffering through the snow and ice storms are interpreting the big chill as more proof that global warming is a hoax. “Warming?” they scoff. “How can the planet be warming when it’s so darn cold?”

People in other parts of the world seem to have no great difficulty understanding the science but, in the good old USA where quite a few people consider science just another political opinion, it is going to take a lot longer to get most people to accept the cold facts about a warmer world.

Put very simply, here is what the predominant science says: Average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades. Some of the warming could be part of a natural cycle but, almost certainly, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels are a pivotal factor in intensifying the phenomenon. The starkest evidence of the temperature jump is the rapid melting of the polar ice caps and the disappearance of the world’s glaciers.

Climate scientists have said another key signal to watch for is a dramatic shift in weather patterns. It is close to impossible to attribute any single weather event — a snowstorm, a tornado, a hurricane — to temperature rise, but, once extreme weather becomes normal and what has been normal is no longer the norm, we will know we are in the throes of change that is likely irreversible.

It sure looks like that could be where we are now. In just the last couple of years, Americans have experienced epic tornados in the center of the country, a monster storm that flooded Manhattan and ravaged New Jersey, extended drought in the West that threatens agriculture and water supplies, and an unprecedented number of wildfires in forests dried to the flammability of kindling. This winter, frigid polar air has slipped south, freezing much of the country, while in Alaska the season has been unusually warm. There are piles of snow in Atlanta, but a dearth of snow in the Sierra.

Extreme and unusual weather has been rolling in with more frequency all over the world.  Governments in most major countries have moved beyond debate about whether global warming is real. They are now busy making plans to deal with the costly disruptions and lethal disasters that climate change has already begun to bring.

Not in this major country, however. Though the Republican nominee for president in 2008, Senator John McCain, declared that all the things that need to be done to cope with and combat climate change would be worth doing even if warming was not happening, the dominant voices in the party sharply disagree. They seem fixated on loony conspiracy theories that imply that the scientists of the world are spinning lies in order to destroy American capitalism.

This week’s ice and snow will eventually melt and spring will come to the South, but too many American minds will remain in a deep freeze of denial. And because so many of the deniers hold seats in Congress, climate change will stay on the growing list of daunting problems that our political system is unable to address.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ice-storm-paradox-20140212,0,7056061.story (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ice-storm-paradox-20140212,0,7056061.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 24, 2014, 01:44:41 pm

from Hawke's Bay Today....

Arctic warmth creates big freeze

By BRUCE BISSET | 9:00AM - Saturday, February 22, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/hbt_SevereWeather_22feb14_zps093ccfd1.jpg)
With severe weather events happening regularly everywhere it is time for the masses to finally realise
they have been lied to.


WHAT I LOVE (NOT!) about climate change deniers is how they cherry-pick data in a very superficial way and then overstate their misinterpretation of it, as if doing so somehow turns a random observation into irrefutable proof.

Take the severe snowstorms and floods affecting America and Europe. A raft of deniers have been having a field day claiming this proves the myth of global warming - and doubtless to many ordinary folk, at first glance that might seem so.

If the Earth is warming, why is it freezing? So it can't be warming. QED.

But in fact it is precisely because the Earth is warming that these never-before-seen freezes are happening.

In this case, the "polar vortex" that almost crippled Canada and the USA last month, and the storms and floods afflicting Britain now, are directly related to the Arctic as a whole — and the area between Greenland and Russia in particular — warming far more rapidly than anywhere else.

Temperatures there are already 2°C to 5°C greater than usual. By century's end, while the global average rise will be about 2.5°C above today's norm, the eastern Arctic will have warmed by 20°C — or more.

Which is the tricky thing about averages. On a global scale, "average" is meaningless. Some places will get cooler! But some will get far hotter.

The Arctic is one such. Problem is, it's the most crucial place in terms of the effects generated by warming, as we are now witnessing.

See, the primary currents of the seas and the winds are controlled by temperature. If the Arctic ocean, or air, or both, warms or cools too much, those macro-mechanisms change their behaviour. And of course the oceanic and atmospheric systems interact.

In the water, the currents at different depths rely on temperature differentials between them in order to keep operating as they should. If any layer warms or cools too much, the whole system gets thrown out of whack and could even cease to function.

Which was, you may recall, the over-played but still relevant scenario used by disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow.

In the air, latest research shows the circumpolar jet stream is "dipping" lower than normal into the Atlantic because it is warmer, and therefore weaker, so it is getting diverted by local weather systems.

This forces the jetstream south, bringing polar storms with it; and those storms hang around far longer than usual because the jetstream now lacks the force to push through them — so the storms eddy in place instead of moving on.

Much as a back-current might eddy in the corner of a diversion race in a stream, while the main flow diverts elsewhere.

Result? The US and Europe freeze and flood — and all because the Arctic is warming.

A denier — someone who deliberately misleads, rather than someone merely taken in by "the obvious" — will not explain these things to you. Because to admit the "myth" is real would open people's eyes to the fact human-induced climate change is just as real. And that can't be allowed, because it is the dirty, polluting, climate change-causing business of coal and oil that has made the rich.

But with severe weather events happening regularly everywhere — such as Australia's burning droughts and our cyclonic summers — the time is upon us where the masses will finally realise they have been lied to: consistently, deliberately, for a long time.

On that day, I bet you won't be able to find a denier for any money.

That's the right of it.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11207317 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11207317)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 24, 2014, 05:11:52 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2dkFG2oJ3w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2dkFG2oJ3w)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on March 02, 2014, 01:30:40 pm


What a load of rubbish from the lil childrens brainwashing department


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on March 02, 2014, 01:35:41 pm
(http://www.loveshift.com/images/PolarBear.jpg)

I knew i should have had some swimming lessons


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on March 02, 2014, 02:07:32 pm

What's a Polar Vortex?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/polar-vortex.htm

4or 5 pages, so keep reading ...


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on March 02, 2014, 03:06:37 pm
(http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/blogs.dir/11/files/2013/10/Polar_Surf_se.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 20, 2014, 01:06:28 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Scientists warn of global warming's abrupt changes

A report by American Association for the Advancement of Science lays out in plain
language the potential for harmful consequences should governments delay action.


By TONY BARBOZA | 9:00PM PST - Tuesday, March 18, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014mar18oco_zps181f33a3.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-5329233a/turbine/la-me-0319-climate-change-20140319)
An artist's rendering of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory, one of five Earth science missions
launching in 2014. It will help answer questions about the planet's carbon dioxide levels.
 — Picture: NASA/JPL-CALTECH.


A GROUP of scientists warned Tuesday that world leaders must act more swiftly to slow greenhouse gas emissions or risk "abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes" from climate change.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science's blunt report contains no new scientific conclusions. But by speaking in plain, accessible terms it seeks to instill greater urgency in leaders and influence everyday Americans. Scientists said many previous assessments have been long and ponderous, and have failed to shift public opinion on global warming.

The goal "is to move policy forward by making science as clear and straightforward as we possibly can," association Chief Executive Alan Leshner said. "What we're trying to do is to move the debate from whether human-induced climate change is reality … to exactly what should you do about it."

The 18-page report, titled "What We Know" (http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf%20), lays out many effects of human-caused climate change already underway. It warns that the consequences are growing more severe the longer governments delay action.

"The sooner we make a concerted effort to curtail the burning of fossil fuels as our primary energy source and releasing the CO2 to the air, the lower our risk and cost will be," the report says.

Its release marks a new approach by the world's largest general scientific society, which has more than 120,000 members. A panel of 13 U.S. climate scientists, including oceanographers, ecologists and public health experts, worked with Climate Nexus, a communications nonprofit, to produce the succinct report and a website (http://whatweknow.aaas.org).

A one-minute online video (see below) posted with the report illustrates the problem of climate change and its consequences. Footage shows a mountain biker careening down a bumpy trail and skidding toward the edge of a cliff as a narrator says "the sooner we put the brakes on climate change, the better off we'll be."


http://vimeo.com/88817119 (http://vimeo.com/88817119)

Though recent polls (http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/scientific-and-public-perspectives-on-climate-change) show many Americans think global warming remains a topic of scientific disagreement, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change — a level of consensus comparable to the science linking smoking to heart and lung disease, the report notes.

"The evidence is overwhelming: levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising," the report says. "Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising. The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat waves are getting worse as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying."

The planet has warmed by about 1.4 degrees since the late 1800s as carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases have built up in the atmosphere from human activity. If emissions keep climbing, temperatures could rise another four to eight degrees over the century, the report says, pushing the climate beyond the range experienced in millions of years and increasing the odds of irreversible damage.

The scientists did not prescribe specific solutions, "but we believe that the full suite of innovative instruments, whether it's technologies or markets or policies, should be brought to bear on this problem," said James McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University who co-chaired the panel.

A report last month by the National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society struck a similar tone, distilling the latest climate science into an easy-to-read series of twenty questions and answers (http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-evidence-and-causes).

The United Nations' body of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will meet in Yokohama, Japan, next week to complete its latest assessment. That report (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/11/local/la-me-climate-change-20131112) will focus on the effect of climate change on nature and society, including the risks warming poses to the world economy, food, water supplies and security.


http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0319-climate-change-20140319,0,234455.story (http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0319-climate-change-20140319,0,234455.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on March 20, 2014, 01:48:03 pm
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/Ash01/Gifs/ChickenLittle_zpsaa18064d.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ash01/media/Gifs/ChickenLittle_zpsaa18064d.jpg.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 05, 2014, 11:05:42 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/3426_DenierFlatEarther_04apr14_zpsb3ed208d.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 05, 2014, 11:07:43 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/3427_TheDenialistDodo_05apr14_zps837f4fe2.jpg) (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf)

Click on the cartoon to download the FULL IPCC “CLIMATE CHANGE 2013” report (365.29 PDF document)
on global warming/climate change published on March 31st, 2014. You can (if you wish) right-click on
the cartoon, then left-click on Save target as... in the menu which appears and select where you want
to save the document to on your computer's hard-drive, then open it from there.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on April 05, 2014, 11:44:57 pm
Al Gore bought his multi million dollar beach home because he wants to watch it go under water lol


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 05, 2014, 11:53:12 pm

I notice that the IPCC report has pages and pages of names of the eminent scientists (with plenty of letters after their names) who peer-reviewed it.

Perhaps the Denier Dodos might like to publish the pages and pages of names of the eminent scientists who have peer-reviewed the head-in-the-sand denials?



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on April 06, 2014, 12:31:18 am
It's all about an agenda about stealing everyone's money with a tax that will change nothing.

If the powers that be wanted it,we could all have free energy because they have technology that is 50 years advanced that the stuff they show us.

Sadly they are keeping it for their own advantage and for the military industrial complex.

We are only getting dribs and drabs of this technology they could change the whole planet any time they ever feel like it.

We are all the slaves of a stupid money chasing system that's on it's last legs and is about to fall apart.

They want to keep this system going as long as they can to keep you and me in our place, that is under these mad blue bloods power and control,

wake up Bruce


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 09, 2014, 02:32:55 pm

From the Los Angeles Times....

Republicans abandon Americans to the calamities of climate change

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Thursday, May 08, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_2014may08a_zps9c2d4711.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-536b288d/turbine/la-na-tt-calamities-of-climate-change-20140507)

OF all the ways the strident wackiness of the Republican Party is harming our country, the absolute worst is the obstinate, willfully ignorant refusal of GOP leaders to deal with the biggest existential threat facing the United States: climate change.

Tuesday was the release date of a congressionally mandated status report on the effects of climate change written by more than 240 scientists, businesspeople and a range of other experts. It details for every region of the country the negative effects already being experienced due to global warming.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” states the report, officially known as the National Climate Assessment. “Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of our recent experience.”

The report goes further than ever before in asserting that more frequent floods, huge wildfires sweeping across the tinder-dry West, new infestations of insects in forests and the drought that is turning crop land and grazing areas to desert from California to Texas are happening not as part of some normal cycle, but because human activity — primarily the burning of fossil fuels — is overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, driving up global temperatures and rapidly altering the Earth’s climate and weather.

On the coasts, sea levels are rising as the polar ice melts. In coming years, beaches will disappear and low-lying cities will be flooded. And, in the Pacific Ocean, the scariest and least noted development is increased CO² levels that are making the water more acidic, threatening to kill off entire species.

At a minimum, local, state and national governments need to prepare for the impact climate change will have on infrastructure, the environment and the economy. And, beyond planning for that nasty stuff, truly wise leaders would be taking steps to curb carbon emissions so that a very bad situation does not become an utter calamity.

But don’t look for those leaders among Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the climate assessment was just another excuse for President Obama to impose a tax on energy. “And I’m sure he’ll get loud cheers from liberal elites — from the kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everybody else about low-flow toilets.”

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a virulent critic of climate scientists, was apparently sharing a talking-points memo with McConnell when he said, “With this report the president is attempting to once again distract Americans from his unchecked regulatory agenda that is costing our nation millions of job opportunities and our ability to be energy independent."

Translation of the comments of both senators: Do not impinge on the profits of the coal and oil extractors in our respective home states. McConnell rails against “elites”, but, of course, he does everything to protect his favored elites in the fossil-fuel-based energy industries while condemning farmers, ranchers, fishermen, timber workers and all the small businesses connected to their activities to a scorched-earth future.

Along with the Republican servants of oil and coal, there are those who serve a constituency with a medieval mindset. Minnesota’s Representative Michele Bachmann and a large cohort of the House Republican caucus are in harmony with a narrow but fervent sector of the Christian community that believes science is a tool of the devil and that droughts and floods and wildfires are just punishments sent by God.

There is nary a House Republican who accepts that climate change is a product of human activity and blessed few with that level of enlightenment among GOP senators. For now, even as the oceans turn to acid and our land burns and bakes, the last place to look for leadership is among the confederacy of dunces that is today’s Republican Party.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-calamities-of-climate-change-20140507-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-calamities-of-climate-change-20140507-story.html)



Along with the Republican servants of oil and coal, there are those who serve a constituency with a medieval mindset. Minnesota’s Representative Michele Bachmann and a large cohort of the House Republican caucus are in harmony with a narrow but fervent sector of the Christian community that believes science is a tool of the devil and that droughts and floods and wildfires are just punishments sent by God.



(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/TooFunny.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LaughingPinkPanther.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/ROFLMAO_Dog.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LaughingHard.gif)(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/ItchyBugga.gif)


Gotta luuuuurve those dumb flat-earthers and their stupid superstitions, eh?  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/09_ROFLMAO.gif)  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/05_Laughing.gif)  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/06_ROFL.gif)  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/07_LaughOutLoud.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on May 12, 2014, 01:43:12 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROGTV7GkWAE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC_J6Pk_1w


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on May 19, 2014, 09:41:37 pm

Professor Bengtsson's research suggested carbon dioxide may be less damaging to the planet than feared
Says he's been subjected to 'unbearable' pressure from other researchers

Has warned of increasing politicisation of the once 'peaceful' science
Others describe a 'poisonous atmosphere' fuelled by plotting researchers


Clicky thing (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630958/I-victimised-challenging-zealots-says-Professor-Poison-plots-battle-neuter-climate-change-critics.html)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 21, 2014, 01:36:49 pm

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-5374686f/turbine/la-na-tt-marco-rubio-on-climate-20140514) (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-marco-rubio-on-climate-20140514-story.html)

               (click on the cartoon to read more)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 22, 2014, 01:00:53 pm

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-537cbda1/turbine/la-na-tt-jerry-brown-climate-20140521) (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-jerry-brown-climate-20140521-story.html)

                    (click on the cartoon to read more)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on May 25, 2014, 10:36:18 pm


Global warming is a scam and it's time to wake up...
The earths temp has not gone up for the last 16 years it's getting cooler.

Every summer they show the arctic ice melt and say its global warming then when the winter the ice cover comes it is record breaking  huge but this goes unreported...

Global warming is a lie to tax everyone and it does nothing except rob people.

129 Climate Scandals

94 climate-gates total
28 new gates
145 links to reports with details

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/#sthash.NWPmTEvC.dpuf


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on May 28, 2014, 05:09:53 pm
This global warming is getting me down at the moment i have never felt it this warm before Brrrrrrrr bring it on ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 11, 2014, 01:28:50 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/20140611_10144529sr_zps14374f7b.jpg) (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10143754/Live-updates-weather-lashes-north)

  (click on the picture to read the news stories)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on June 11, 2014, 09:49:58 pm
What we used to call storms in the 50's &60's.  Used to watch the old gum trees flailing away in winds so strong that they would bend the big upright branches so far over that they would brush the ground.  Ferries would run aground in Wellington harbour.  Streams would break their banks and flood low lying housing. 
Since then, there have been a few decades where the weather has been a bit milder, before again now cycling into the heavier weather.

Apparently nowadays these storms are called catastrophes, or natural disasters, or somesuch .
[I'm sure there's no agenda by NIWA and its running mates in their descriptive nomenclature?]


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: robman on June 12, 2014, 01:04:34 am
What we used to call storms in the 50's &60's.  Used to watch the old gum trees flailing away in winds so strong that they would bend the big upright branches so far over that they would brush the ground.  Ferries would run aground in Wellington harbour.  Streams would break their banks and flood low lying housing. 
Since then, there have been a few decades where the weather has been a bit milder, before again now cycling into the heavier weather.

Apparently nowadays these storms are called catastrophes, or natural disasters, or somesuch .
[I'm sure there's no agenda by NIWA and its running mates in their descriptive nomenclature?]
Short memories coupled with a growing trend to build in places nobody would have fifty years ago.


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on June 12, 2014, 11:16:29 am
The post should be call the shitty weather page for climate change religion retards.

I believe its all just a load of warm air coming out of KTJ's bum(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/01_BrownEye.gif)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 25, 2014, 11:57:38 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfgate_morfordbanner2.jpg) (http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford)

An inordinate fear of no water

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist (mmorford@sfgate.com) | 5:59PM PDT - Tuesday, June 24, 2014

IT SEEMS simple enough, even a little romantic, a little American-dreamy: I’m looking to buy some property.

Northward. Woodsy. Modernrusticsexycool. Just the sweetest and most perfect getaway property ever, is all, something about an hour or two from San Francisco, up in the more lushly arboreal regions of Sonoma or Napa counties, remote enough to quell the City’s roar but not so remote to be inhaling all the off-gasses from regional meth labs or suffering any gunfire from Mendocino’s cranky pot kingpins.

Is it too much to ask? A modest home-slash-retreat space on a few acres that can maybe house a handful of yoga students and/or writers for a long weekend, accessible to civilization but not so snobbish that you can’t run around naked and covered in chocolate and bourbon and dreams, and all of it on columnist/yoga teacher’s budget?


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfg_20140624_stilthouse_zpsf3be339a.jpg) (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/files/2014/06/stilthouse.jpg)
You know, like this (Tom Kundig! Call me).

It might be. Obvious Problem No.1: I don’t work for Google, or Oracle, or FaceTwitChat, and therefore am not up to my flaccid fleece hoodie (http://www.sfgate.com/style/article/Are-you-hard-core-normcore-See-why-S-F-rules-5567289.php) in mountains of tech-bro cash that I can throw around like Monopoly money; I don’t even have an extra $2 million to buy a closet-sized condo in the Mission. It makes things a little rough.

But I’m not bitter. Just… realistic. There’s still plenty of lovely opportunities to be had, even if prices have leapt into the near-stratosphere pretty much everywhere. Translation: from what I’ve seen so far, my modest budget limits me to places that are a little hardscrabble, a little rough-hewn, a little needful of significant upkeep of their aging septic systems, coarse landscapes and, invariably, spring-fed water.

Wait, what? Right, the water. The Looming Issue. The Unexpected Fear. Water — or rather, the potential lack thereof — is something I didn’t realize I’d be quite so worried about when I started my search. But now? It’s damn near unavoidable.

Problem is, I work in media. Every day I see the stories. Every day I read the reports, scan the graphs, am stunned by charts showing nearly the entire state of California — not to mention huge swaths of the world — drenched in dark purple or blood red (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west), hovering somewhere between “severe drought”, “exceptional drought” and “OMG we are so f*cked”.

Did you know this past May was the hottest May the world has ever known (http://mashable.com/2014/06/23/may-earths-warmest-record)? Did you read it was just 110 degrees in Mumbai… at 1:00 in the morning (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/06/11/india_s_heat_wave_is_unbearable_extreme_temperatures_in_new_delhi_mumbai.html)? Did you know global warming is no longer a preventable possibility, but a exceedingly brutal reality? The Southwest’s savage drought is just the beginning.

How about the fact that California’s record drought just got worse (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-drought-worsens-across-california-20140619-story.html), given how the meager winter snowpack is gone and hence the fire danger is already at ridiculous levels? There is no more fire season, per se. It’s now just one continuous threat that never ends.

The facts swirl and threaten, mingle and conflict (http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_26009266/california-drought-snowmelt-path-shows-impact-sierras-pacific). What to believe? How fearful and anxious to be, exactly? Forget skyrocketing real estate prices. Is it just too risky to buy rural property around here anymore? How long until all those wells and springs run dry? Until the big lakes no longer feed the reservoirs? Until fire danger is out of control? Did you know, just this past January, before the meager rains finally came, that 17 California counties were at risk of completely running out of water within two to four months?

It’s hard to know where to look for answers. I do know, for example, that something like 85 percent of CA’s water goes to agribusiness. And much of that goes to grow grain, to feed industrial cattle, to supply fast-food addictions and excess beef consumption. The basic rule persists: Want to save the most water? Stop eating so much meat. And almonds. And California rice. And so on (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going).


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfg_20140624_quickie_zps1e3e918a.jpg) (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/files/2014/06/quickie.png)
Cute. Now go tell the farmers.

Despite this fact, San Francisco just launched a “sexy” new water-saving ad campaign (http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/06/23/make-it-a-quickie-s-fs-sex-themed-water-campaign), encouraging urbanites to cut back 10 percent by “making it a quickie” in the shower, which is all cute and fun until you learn that SF actually uses the least water of any major county in the state, less than a fifth of what Sacramento gulps per capita. And even Sacto’s gluttony is half of what Palm Desert sucks away (http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25090363/california-drought-water-use-varies-widely-around-state) for all those ridiculous lawns, golf courses and pools.

But all of California’s urbanites combined come nowhere near to the amount of water that goes to big agribusiness — and by and large, they have little or no regulation at all. Bottom line: even if SF cuts back 10 percent, we’re only saving what, about one percent of the total? Two?

I went canoeing down the Russian River just last week, and it was still all kinds of beautiful, despite dramatically low water levels, less than a foot deep in many places, at a time of year when the river should be roaring. Burke’s Canoe Rentals, in operation for generations, says it hasn’t been this bad in 40 years. They should know.

The numbers are bizarre and disorienting. Tom Stienstra, who’s been writing the San Francisco Chronicle’s Outdoors column for something like 100 years, just toured many of the state’s most popular lakes. He found most are well below normal and some are downright catastrophic, but he still managed to find 25 (out of 125) that are nearly 100 percent full (http://www.sfgate.com/outdoors/article/Multiple-lakes-in-California-are-in-good-5570106.php), pristine and gleaming and ready for summer splashes. It all has to do with controlled runoff, drainage, dams, who gets what, who steals what, who has rights and power and political leverage.

How to process it all? How to properly understand the real risks, the false alarms, the ominous and seemingly imminent potential for collapse?

Surely it’s not that bad. Surely we’re good for another handful of years, at least. Surely those natural springs that feed all those rural properties up north, the ones that have been flowing ceaselessly since the days of the first settlers, will still have enough to sustain a small home in the woods for a decade or three, until I’m too old to care, until I’ve long moved away to Costa Rica or Bali or Portland. Right?


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/SFGate%20News%20Pix/sfg_d0240624_omgcalifornia_zps1cb7dbcc.jpg) (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/files/2014/06/omgcalifornia.png)
Not a blue state anymore.

Or maybe the rains will come back. Maybe next year’s potential (mild) El Niño (http://mashable.com/2014/06/20/el-nino-extreme-weather-charts) will save California for a few more years. Maybe Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma, both essential to the region I’m most interested in and both already well below half of normal, won’t dry up completely.

One thing we know for sure: It’s not advisable to live in fear. It’s a fool’s game to base your life choices around what might happen. After all, the Big One has been inevitable in SF for decades (and it still is). Human extinction, too. Las Vegas won’t last another 20 years (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/03/las_vegas_water_conservation_it_s_a_mirage.html). There isn’t a town in America that isn’t at risk for some kind of natural catastrophe, be it hurricanes, floods, ice storms, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, locusts, snakes, reality TV, Republicans.

But water? That’s a little different. That’s a little… unsolvable. Irreparable. Devastating.

I don’t need a garden. I don’t need an almond grove. Maybe just an occasional shower, a tiny hot tub, something to drink in the summer to help replenish what makes up about, oh, 60 percent of the human body. Is that too much to ask?


Email: Mark Morford (etc@markmorford.com)

Mark Morford (http://www.markmorford.com) on Twitter (http://twitter.com/markmorford) and Facebook (http://facebook.com/markmorfordyes).

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/06/24/an-inordinate-fear-of-no-water (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/06/24/an-inordinate-fear-of-no-water)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 19, 2014, 03:40:13 pm

from The Dominion Post....

Storms on the way and the warmest winter on record

By OLIVIA WANNAN and SHABNAM DASTGHEIB | 11:34AM - Saturday, 19 July 2014

NORTHLAND could be in for another bout of severe weather over the next 24 hours with MetService predicting strong easterlies, heavy rain and thunderstorms.

A severe weather warning is in place with about 60mm of rain predicted between midday and 6am Sunday. This will intensify in the eastern hills from the Bay of Islands to Whangarei with about 90mm expected there.

Northland is already "soggy" and Metservice forecasters said given those conditions rivers and streams would rise rapidly and flooding was likely in some areas.

Last weekend's storm caused widespread damage, drove families from their homes, cut off some communities and left others without power.

This weekend's heavy rain was expected to spread southwards with a possibility of severe gales around northern Auckland this evening and overnight.

Easterlies could reach gusts of up to 100 km/h this afternoon before easing tonight. These winds would be followed by southerly gales gusting up to 90km/h.


WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD

Last year set records for high temperatures around the world, giving New Zealand its warmest winter, and Australia its hottest year since records began.

The warming climate also brought with it droughts, floods and storms — the only silver lining was that Kiwis were a bit less likely to get sunburnt.

Over the past two summers, the ozone hole was smaller, weaker and broke up sooner than in past years, according to the State of the Climate in 2013 report, published yesterday by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Warmer air at the South Pole means chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do less damage to ozone, the atmospheric material that filters out much of the UV radiation the Earth is bombarded with.

Over winter, clouds form high over the poles and turn CFCs into their active, ozone-degradation forms, National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research ozone researcher Olaf Morgenstern says.

These clouds last, breaking up ozone, until temperature goes above a certain threshold. "Less of that happens in a warm winter."

Morgenstern said the largest ozone hole was recorded in 2006, and since then it had fluctuated in size.

While not as badly affected by ozone depletion as Antarctica, New Zealand experiences higher levels of UV radiation because of the loss of the ozone layer. With peak UV intensities high, Kiwis have the highest death rate in the world from skin cancer — about 300 a year.

Victoria University climatologist James Renwick, who collaborated on the report, said the conclusions showed the globe was continuing to heat up. While many Kiwis might take comfort in warmer winters, he warned such seasons came hand-in-hand with more severe storms, droughts, floods, and sea level rise.

"You hear about global warming of two or three degrees and you think that's the difference between 9 o'clock in the morning and midday. But what we consider a warm year now will be considered a cold year in future."

Renwick said last year's North Island drought was a warning that the agricultural industry would increasingly feel the pinch. It was adaptable — farmers might swap cold-climate crops such as apples to dry-suited pineapples and bananas — but without significant emissions changes, it was unavoidable, he said.

"In one farmer's working life — if they started out today — by the time they're ready to retire, the climate will be noticeably different."

The compounding effects of global warming were also seen in the destruction of last year's Typhoon Haiyan, noted in the report, when a powerful storm strengthened by warms seas met raised sea levels, Renwick said. "It's like the straw that breaks the camel's back."


BY THE NUMBERS

New Zealand's weather in 2013:

 • $1.12 billion: The economic impact of the January-April drought.

 • 16.5 degrees: The highest average temperature, for Dargaville. The national average was 13.4.

 • 39 percent: Of all New Zealand locations had their warmest winter on record.

 • 35.1 degrees celcius: The highest temperature for the year, recorded in Clyde, Central Otago, and Gisborne.

 • 20 percent: Drop annual rainfall fornorthern North Island and South Island's West Coast.

 • 28,000: Homes lost power in the September 10th-11th storm.

 • 200km/h: Gales recorded on Wellington hills during the June 20th-21st storm.

 • 600mm: Rain at Tekapo during June storm. The eastern South Island had four times its annual June rainfall.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10285595/Storms-on-the-way-and-the-warmest-winter-on-record (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10285595/Storms-on-the-way-and-the-warmest-winter-on-record)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on July 19, 2014, 10:46:35 pm
Can you please send some global warming down here - Its currently minus 3º C and dropping.  This morning the pipes were frozen - something else that didn't happen last year


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 30, 2014, 03:14:26 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

U.S. can be a global winner by going lean on energy consumption

By DAVID HORSEY | 1:00PM PDT - Tuesday, July 29, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_20140729dh_zpsa125ba99.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-53d7ef39/turbine/la-na-tt-energy-consumption-20140729)

THERE ARE endless metrics to gauge whether the United States is ahead or behind other countries. Finland does education better and cheaper. Russians and central Europeans beat Americans in alcohol consumption. But it takes only five minutes for the average American to earn enough money to buy a pint of beer — far less time than in any other nation. And, when it comes to meat consumption, only the Australians come close to matching the amount of dead animal we eat in the land of the free and the home of the obese.

Whatever the measure, no one in this country really cares how we stack up against Ethiopia or Uruguay or Vanuatu. That is like comparing the Dodgers with a T-ball team. The competitor we really care about is China.

The U.S. still beats China in movie-box-office revenues, number of Internet users and spending on the military, but China has leaped ahead in spewing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That is quite a dramatic feat, given the amount of CO2 generated by the U.S. Still, Americans are far more productive than the Chinese in this arena. With a mere 5% of the planet’s population, we consume 20% of global energy, and it is the consumption of all that energy — largely produced from fossil fuels — that unleashes all that extra carbon.

World Population Balance (http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy), a group that promotes population control as a means of ensuring that human consumption does not outstrip natural resources, offers a useful observation that Americans may want to take to heart: “Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she’d have to have more than 10 children to match the impact (on resources) of an American woman with just one child!”

This does not imply that Americans should have no children at all, but it does mean we should do all we can to guarantee a better future for those children. That would be a future where our economy no longer relies on the burning of oil and coal; a future where the most extreme effects of climate change have been forestalled by dramatic reductions in carbon emissions.

Much as the obesity epidemic is teaching us we need to eat better and smarter, we need to also go lean in energy consumption. This is not a terrible sacrifice, except for the extracting industries that want to keep us chained to 19th century energy sources. For the United States as a whole, it means moving to head of the pack in renewable resources, clean energy jobs and high technology.

And if the rest of the world wants to compete with us in that race — come on, China! — it would be a very good thing for us all.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-energy-consumption-20140729-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-energy-consumption-20140729-story.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 30, 2014, 05:47:45 pm
A pile of Horsey shit

(http://visibility911.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/horseshit.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 30, 2014, 06:09:51 pm

The NON-stupid merely have to observe the numerous WARMEST on RECORD records being established during recent winters.

As for the non-NON-stupid (ie....the plain STUPID)....well there is no hope for them, so better to sit back and laugh at them when the inevitable summer storms flood and/or trash their homes. Naturally, they'll be too STUPID to comprehend why their insurance premiums are rocketing skywards....(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/19_HammerHead.gif)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 30, 2014, 11:37:21 pm

Jump right in KTJ they will make room for you

(http://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/ship-of-fools.jpg?w=640)

If i wish hard and pretend the damn fools will give me money

(http://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/gore-reuters.jpg?w=640)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 30, 2014, 11:49:21 pm

Nope....nobody is going to give you money.

Instead, your insurance company is going to demand higher and higher premiums as increasingly extreme weather events caused by climate change caused by average global temperature warming pushes the cost of repairing the resultant damage to property through the roof, resulting in ALL insurance companies recouping the vastly increasing amounts they are paying out.

Naturally, you can cease insuring your property if you don't wish to pay those rapidly increasing premiums, but then, when the “inevitable” eventually occurs to your property during extreme weather events caused by climate change/global warming, then you'll be severely fucked when your property gets fucked over by those extreme weather events.

Perhaps you could then blame god or some other similar delusion for your misfortune?  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/42_Whip.gif)

You could even put it down to god punishing you for something!  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/09_ROFLMAO.gif)  (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/07_LaughOutLoud.gif)



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 31, 2014, 01:04:08 am
That's your god Al Gore it looks like he's taking a dump on your head

(http://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/gore-reuters.jpg?w=640)

Insurance price increases were caused by Christchurch earthquakes you dumb arse ;D


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 31, 2014, 02:16:16 am

The increase in costs caused by the Christchurch earthquakes were but a mere piffling amount compared to the HUGE increase in costs to insurance companies repairing the damage caused by the vastly increasing numbers of extreme weather events around the world year by year as the planet warms up.

Open your eyes to what is going on before it swallows you. Particularly note how even mainstream economists and business people are noticing how the cost to insurance companies repairing damage from extreme weather-related events have caused insurance premium increases to go ballistic all around the world.

Mainstream business, economists, and insurance companies “get it!” The truly STUPID don't get it, but they eventually will as they are overwhelmed when it happens to them, and not just once either, but eventually multiple times when the weather well & truly fucks them and their property over.

In the meantime, the truly STUPID are free to keep their heads buried in the sand, if they wish, until they feel their arses being undermined, then wonder where that came from.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 31, 2014, 05:54:49 pm
So your saying that we dont have any problems from the massive world wide money printing causing inflation,causing rising costs for everything,and all our rising insurance fee's are just caused by the weather and not the sun (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/MSN%20emoticons/42emhot.gif) LMAO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9HE5uQHiJ0

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02664/arctic_2664700b.jpg)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Cooling is climate change hahaha it's freezing my arse off,

I might bury my head in the sand to keep my ears warm lol

but wait there's more lol

Global Cooling is Here

Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 31, 2014, 07:20:18 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/3427_TheDenialistDodo_05apr14_zps837f4fe2.jpg) (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf)

Click on the cartoon to download the FULL IPCC “CLIMATE CHANGE 2013” report (365.29 PDF document)
on global warming/climate change published on March 31st, 2014. You can (if you wish) right-click on
the cartoon, then left-click on Save target as... in the menu which appears and select where you want
to save the document to on your computer's hard-drive, then open it from there.



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 31, 2014, 07:22:25 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013aug22al_zps2b156cf1.jpg) (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-climate-change-deniers-20130821,0,6254618.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 31, 2014, 07:23:32 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix/latimes_2013nov14a_zps716be008.jpg) (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-typhoon-haiyans-20131113,0,921020.story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on July 31, 2014, 10:11:52 pm
KTJ  lol


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/3427_TheDenialistDodo_05apr14_zps837f4fe2.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 08, 2014, 04:50:26 pm

from The Press....

Extreme weather costs insurers $135m

By NICOLE MATHEWSON | 1:27PM - Monday, 08 September 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/20140908_10472913sr_zps63ea93d2.jpg) (http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1410141995/913/10472913.jpg)
DESTRUCTION: A small tornado ripped Blaketown on the South Island's West Coast, damaging roofs
and uprooting trees. — SARAH-JANE O'CONNOR/Fairfax NZ.


THIS YEAR is shaping up to be one of the most expensive for New Zealand's insurers, with weather-related damage costing more than $135 million so far.

New data released by the Insurance Council of New Zealand today showed 2014 was looking to be one of the costliest years for the country's insurers, with seven major weather events contributing to $135m worth of claims.

Chief executive Tim Grafton said the final cost of the Easter storm that hit the West Coast had risen to $55.3m, up from an initial estimate of $45m.

The storm was the biggest events of the year so far, resulting in about 10,000 claims and $32m worth of damage to homes, contents and vehicles.

The provisional cost for the storm that hit Northland, Auckland and the Coromandel in July added another $15.1m worth of claims to insurers, with about $8m of that relating to homes and contents.

“Homeowners also bore the brunt of the July storm, which highlights the importance of New Zealand's generally high levels of insurance uptake to ensure a quick economic recovery at times like these,” Grafton said.

Weather-events cost insurers $175m in New Zealand last year, making 2013 the second most expensive year since 1968, the year of the Wahine disaster.


2014 WEATHER COST

July 8th-11th: Severe weather in Northland, Auckland and the Coromandel (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10246343/Winds-hammer-upper-North-Island) — $15.1m (provisional).

June 25th: Nelson-Tasman district wind and floods — $4.3m (provisional).

June 9th-11th: Severe weather across New Zealand (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8823953/Major-storm-mop-up-gets-under-way) — $29.8m (provisional).

April 17th: West Coast Easter storm (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/your-weather/9956601/Easter-storm-batters-South-Island) and floods — $55.3m.

March 15th-16th: Cyclone Lusi — $3.6m.

March 4th-5th: Canterbury (Floods swamp Christchurch (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/your-weather/9790499/One-in-100-year-flood-swamps-Christchurch)) and lower North Island storm — $4.8m.

February 23th: Canterbury storm (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9755161/Storm-brings-hail-tornado-to-Canterbury) — $22.5m.

February storm cost $5m (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/your-weather/10229340/February-storm-cost-5m-in-insurance).


Related photograph galleries:

 • Easter storm (http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/the-press/9956617/Easter-storm)

 • Storm hits the north (http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/national/photos/10244282/Storm-hits-the-north)

 • Storm hits North Island (http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/national/videos/10247796/Storm-hits-North-Island)

 • Christchurch flooding — March 5th, 2014 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/the-press/photos/9791692/Christchurch-flooding-March-5-2014)

 • St Albans Flooding (http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/the-press/videos/9793227/St-Albans-Flooding)


http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/10472363/Extreme-weather-costs-insurers-135m (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/10472363/Extreme-weather-costs-insurers-135m)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on September 08, 2014, 04:56:27 pm
We should ban weather hahahaha i nearly pissed myself (http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/09_ROFLMAO.gif)

High cost is caused by the fact that our money is not worth the paper it is written on which is the same reason our food and everything else cost such a lot


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on September 08, 2014, 05:34:20 pm
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/30/1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG.JPG)


Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3CgwBSMT0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 03, 2014, 01:27:35 pm

from The Guardian....

IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change

Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must
be cut sharply and soon, but UN’s IPCC says solutions are available and affordable.


By DAMIAN CARRINGTON in Copenhagen | 1:23PM GMT - Sunday, 02 November 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/guardian_20141102_CarbonEmissions_zpsb2181023.jpg) (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/1/1414880289907/7f611d11-36f2-45e6-ac95-d2be9bf10956-460x276.jpeg)
Carbon emissions, such as those from the Mehrum coal-fired power plant
in Germany, will have to fall to zero to avoid catastrophic climate change,
the IPCC says. — Photo: Julian Stratenschulte/Corbis.


CLIMATE CHANGE is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.

The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts. But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.

“Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message,” said the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, attending what he described as the “historic” report launch. “Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” He said that quick, decisive action would build a better and sustainable future, while inaction would be costly.

Ban added a message to investors, such as pension fund managers: “Please reduce your investments in the coal- and fossil fuel-based economy and move to renewable energy.”

The report, released in Copenhagen on Sunday by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch), is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by the world’s governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.

The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/global-climate-talks) just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/live/2014/sep/23/un-climate-change-summit-in-new-york-live-coverage) to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2014/sep/21/peoples-climate-march-live) around the world demanded action.

“We have the means to limit climate change,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change.”

Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and the author of an influential earlier study, said the new IPCC report was the “most important assessment of climate change ever prepared” (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/tony-abbott-must-put-climate-change-on-the-g20-agenda-in-brisbane) and that it made plain that “further delays in tackling climate change would be dangerous and profoundly irrational”.

“The reality of climate change is undeniable, and cannot be simply wished away by politicians who lack the courage to confront the scientific evidence,” he said, adding that the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people were at risk.

Ed Davey, the UK energy and climate change secretary, said: “This is the most comprehensive and robust assessment ever produced. It sends a clear message: we must act on climate change now. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said: “This is another canary in the coal mine. We can’t prevent a large scale disaster if we don’t heed this kind of hard science.”

Bill McKibben, a high-profile climate campaigner with 350.org (http://350.org), said: “For scientists, conservative by nature, to use ‘serious, pervasive, and irreversible’ to describe the effects of climate falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola.” Breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry would not be easy, McKibben said. “But, thanks to the IPCC, no one will ever be able to say they weren’t warned.”


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/guardian_20141102_Singapore_zps3e0784c1.jpg) (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/2/1414921762280/70da5395-0e61-4f23-8822-b49e8cc463d8-460x276.jpeg)
Singapore shrouded by a haze as carbon emissions soar.
 — Photo: Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty Images.


The new overarching IPCC report builds on previous reports on the science (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change), impacts (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-threat-food-security-humankind) and solutions for climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/13/averting-climate-change-catastrophe-is-affordable-says-ipcc-report-un). It concludes that global warming is “unequivocal”, that humanity’s role in causing it is “clear” and that many effects will last for hundreds to thousands of years even if the planet’s rising temperature is halted.

In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: “In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.”

Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: “Climate change is projected to undermine food security.” The report also found the risk of wars could increase: “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

Two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere, the IPPC found. The lowest cost route to stopping dangerous warming would be for emissions to peak by 2020 – an extremely challenging goal — and then fall to zero later this century.

The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/12/ipcc-report-world-must-switch-clean-sources-energy) will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emission cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early. “If you wait, you also have to do more difficult and expensive things,” said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC working group vice-chair.


(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/guardian_20141102_JulietteGeorgia_zps88d2a22f.jpg) (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/2/1414922068127/565b03d2-cbad-4752-b52d-0ed712e65613-460x276.jpeg)
The coal-fired Scherer plant in operation in Juliette, Georgia.
 — Photo: John Amis/Associated Press.


Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/13/averting-climate-change-catastrophe-is-affordable-says-ipcc-report-un), the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.

Carbon capture and storage (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/carbon-capture-and-storage) (CCS) — the nascent technology (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/canada-switches-on-worlds-first-carbon-capture-power-plant) which aims to bury CO² underground — is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS. Pachauri said: “With CCS it is entirely possible for fossil fuels to continue to be used on a large scale.”

The focus on CCS is not because the technology has advanced a great deal in recent years, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and vice-chair of the IPCC, but because emissions have continued to increase so quickly. “We have emitted so much more, so we have to clean up more later”, he said.

Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26994746) would reduce atmospheric CO² levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states “very honestly and fairly” that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.

In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.

As part of setting out how the world’s nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. “[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness,” says the report. “The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation.”

These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.

“Rich governments must stop making empty promises and come up with the cash so the poorest do not have to foot the bill for the lifestyles of the wealthy,” said Harjeet Singh, from ActionAid.

The statement that carbon emissions must fall to zero was “gamechanging”, according to Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace. “We can still limit warming to 2°C, or even 1.5°C or less even, [but] we need to phase out emissions,” she said. Unlike CCS, which is yet to be proven commercially, she said renewable energy was falling rapidly in cost.

Sam Smith, from WWF, said: “The big change in this report is that it shows fighting climate change is not going to cripple economies and that it is essential to bringing people out of poverty. What is needed now is concerted political action.” The rapid response of politicians to the recent global financial crisis showed, according to Smith, that “they could act quickly and at scale if they are sufficiently motivated”.

Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation, said the much greater certainty expressed in the new IPCC report would give international climate talks a better chance than those which failed in 2009. “Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for no action,” he said.

Observers played down the moves made by some countries with large fossil fuel reserves to weaken the language of the draft IPCC report written by scientists and seen by the Guardian, saying the final report was conservative but strong.

However, the statement that “climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, including greater likelihood of death” was deleted in the final report, along with criticism that politicians sometimes “engage in short-term thinking and are biased toward the status quo”.


Click the links to download the reports:

 • CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 — Synthesis Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf) (3.4MB PDF)

 • CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 — The Physical Science Basis (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf) (375.0MB PDF)

 • CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 — Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability … Part A: Global and Sectorial Aspects (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf) 98.0(MB PDF)

 • CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 — Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability … Part B: Regional Aspects (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf) (78.0MB PDF)

 • CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 — Mitigation of Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/) (links to download individual chapters)


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/rapid-carbon-emission-cuts-severe-impact-climate-change-ipcc-report (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/rapid-carbon-emission-cuts-severe-impact-climate-change-ipcc-report)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 05, 2014, 12:01:25 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/20141105_ExcitementKiller_10702053sr_zps9fb7cfc5.jpg) (http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/10698753/All-talk-no-action-on-climate-change)
                                                                                      click on the cartoon


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 14, 2014, 04:23:35 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

Right wing freaks out over China-U.S. climate change deal

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Thursday, November 13, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_20141113dh_zps8d1343e0.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-54642f80/turbine/la-na-tt-chinaus-climate-deal-20141112)

ABOUT five seconds after the announcement came from Beijing that the United States and China had reached an unexpected and ambitious climate change agreement, Republicans in Washington declared it the worst deal since the Trojans accepted a big wooden horse from the Greeks.

Climate scientists had a different reaction. If China and the U.S. actually reach the goals to which they are committing, and if other nations follow their lead, climate experts are saying the world will have made a huge leap toward averting the worst effects of rising global temperatures.

You would think everyone would be cheering, but the boos and catcalls from the right have just begun.

Throughout his campaign for reelection, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said it would be foolhardy to raise carbon dioxide emissions standards on American companies as long as China, the world’s biggest generator of greenhouse gases, was sticking to business as usual. But now that China has agreed to take a big step away from coal as its primary fuel source, McConnell still is not satisfied and stands ready to fight implementation of the new agreement once he becomes Senate majority leader in January.

In McConnell’s case, it is transparently obvious that his prime motivation is to protect his state’s coal industry. If that industry happens to be contributing to shifts in climate that threaten civilization, that’s tough luck. McConnell is far more concerned about the profits of the energy industries that finance his, and his party’s, campaigns.

The Senate’s chief climate change denier, Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, also damned the China deal, branding it a “nonbinding charade”. The rest of the right wing chimed in with similar sentiments, asserting that the Chinese had bamboozled President Obama. Because there are no hard and fast requirements in the deal, just aspirational goals, the critics assert that the sneaky Chinese will do nothing while Obama’s reckless and unnecessary new emissions standards wreck the U.S. economy and turn the nation into an impoverished vassal of Beijing.

Besides ignoring the positive bump the American economy would receive from turning to renewable energy sources, the conservatives’ argument misses a very big factor driving China’s sudden willingness to do something about the bad stuff their factories and cars are spewing into the atmosphere. The pollution clouding Chinese cities is a political danger to the regime. China’s President Xi Jinping has agreed to cap emissions and move 20% of the country’s energy consumption to alternative fuels by 2030, not to please the international community or to pull a fast one on Americans, but to avoid a revolt in his own smog-choked country. It’s called self-interest.

Unfortunately, in the United States, too many politicians interpret self-interest as whatever it is that will get them re-elected. The true self-interest of our nation is far larger. It is to keep heartland farms from drying up, to avert extreme sea level rises that would flood coastal cities and to avoid increasingly intense and destructive wildfires, tornadoes, blizzards, floods and hurricanes — all the calamities that will come with climate change.

Anyone who actually cares about America — and the future American economy — would welcome the deal with China as a step in the right direction and would be engaged in making sure it is fully implemented by both countries. Instead, we have pseudo-patriots in Congress and the conservative media doing what they do best: spreading paranoia and protecting the interests of those who are getting rich today by forsaking generations of Americans to come.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-chinaus-climate-deal-20141112-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-chinaus-climate-deal-20141112-story.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on November 15, 2014, 11:08:17 am

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20157286


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 27, 2014, 12:07:36 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

California drought puts a chill on L.A. pool time

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Wednesday, November 26, 2014

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/LA%20Times%20News%20Pix%202014/latimes_20141126dh_zps2af9b6d7.jpg) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-5475aaab/turbine/la-na-tt-california-drought-20141126)

AS the East Coast gets pummeled with rain and heavy snow, messing up Thanksgiving plans for thousands of travelers, folks here in Southern California are looking forward to a Turkey Day with temperatures in the 80s. Please pass the sunblock and cranberry sauce.

Enjoying day after day of nice weather makes a person feel somewhat disconnected from the meteorological travails that beset the rest of the country. Last week, when icy air and heaps of snow blasted most of the U.S., it was still possible to walk around in shorts and a T-shirt here in L.A. — and worry about a sunburn. Newscasters kept noting that there were freezing temperatures in all 50 states, but, in California, that was in the Sierras, not in the city.

Not having lived in Los Angeles until recently, I now understand why Angelenos are generally so good-natured and laid back. Who wouldn’t be if almost every day can be a beach day? When I tell people here I moved down from Seattle, a look of pity crosses their faces and they ask how I ever survived all the rain. When I note that, for three or four months of the year, Seattle is often as dry and sunny as San Diego, the fact doesn’t even register. For them, Seattle equals rain. Chicago equals cold wind. Boston equals icy winters. New York equals humid, muggy summers. And everywhere else is just a wasteland of tornadoes, ticks and hurricanes.

Los Angeles equals sunshine. Yet, not all is serene in La La Land. There is way too much of a good thing.

This year has been the hottest on record in California. According to the National Drought Mitigation Center, every area of the state is stuck in an extended drought, with about two-thirds of the state experiencing “exceptional drought”, the highest level.

The lack of rain is slamming California’s agriculture industry and, as a result, food prices are likely to shoot up all over the country. Already, the drought has cost the state more than $2 billion and has killed more than 17,000 jobs, according to a study done at the UC Davis.

As the state dries up, wildfire “season” is becoming a misnomer. Fire danger is a near constant. All those additional fires are not only burning the land, they are polluting the air. Wetter weather may come, but it is most likely to arrive as torrential rains that create mudslides yet do little to replenish groundwater, rivers and snowpack.

UC Davis researchers do not expect the drought to end this year or next year. In fact, they predict it will stretch into 2016. This means water is going to get even more scarce. There will be a lot less for irrigation, for drinking, for taking showers, for watering golf courses, for washing cars, not to mention the low river levels that will inhibit salmon from swimming out to sea.

In various parts of the state, mandatory restrictions on consumption have been put in place to conserve water supplies. In a few remote towns in Central California, though, it is already too late. Wells have gone completely dry and residents drive to towns miles away to get a ration of water to take back home.

All of this sends a little metaphorical gray cloud into the sunny sky. When pondering the fate of those poor schmucks back in Buffalo with a mountain of melting snow covering their front lawns, it’s no longer easy to feel smug. Sure, lying back and relaxing in a lounge chair in the sunshine is better than shoveling slush, but it’s not quite the same when the shimmering swimming pool a few steps away only reminds you it may need to be drained one day so your family will have something to drink.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-california-drought-20141126-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-california-drought-20141126-story.html)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: reality on November 27, 2014, 04:06:25 pm
...."but it’s not quite the same when the shimmering swimming pool a few steps away only reminds you it may need to be drained one day so your family will have something to drink."

...and which day exactly is that ;)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 13, 2014, 06:55:21 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/News%20Story%20Pix%202014/20141213_10925004sr_zpsd855e48a.jpg) (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/64120759/Deadly-storm-buries-houses-washes-away-roads)
   (click on the picture to read the news story)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: reality on December 13, 2014, 10:12:56 pm
Ah..so the conspiracy theorists are blaming every storm on climate change now....probably hard to prove..buy hey..lets not let the FACTS get in the way of a good conspiracy theory ;)...the reasoning is up to your usual standard...there aint any ::)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 15, 2014, 08:20:40 am

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/20141210_SaveThePlanet_10900023sr_zps21925ec4.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: reality on December 15, 2014, 03:03:40 pm

...Finally the 194 nations at the UN climate talks agree ;)...to try and find an agreement next year..... :o

14 December 2014
UN members agree deal at Lima climate talks
COMMENTS (1065)
A dried up irrigation reservoir in the Yala national park in Sri Lanka - 11 September 2014
Developing countries have accused wealthier nations of failing to take responsibility for climate change
Continue reading the main story

United Nations members have reached an agreement on how countries should tackle climate change.

Delegates have approved a framework for setting national pledges to be submitted to a summit next year.

Differences over the draft text caused the two-week talks in Lima, Peru, to overrun by two days.

Environmental groups said the deal was an ineffectual compromise, but the EU said it was a step towards achieving a global climate deal next year in Paris.

The talks proved difficult because of divisions between rich and poor countries over how to spread the burden of pledges to cut carbon emissions.

'Not perfect'
The agreement was adopted hours after a previous draft was rejected by developing countries, who accused rich nations of shirking their responsibilities to fight global warming and pay for its impacts.

Peru's environment minister, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who chaired the summit, told reporters: "As a text it's not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties."

Miguel Arias Canete, EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, said the EU had wanted a more ambitious outcome but he still believed that "we are on track to agree a global deal" at a summit in Paris, France, next year.

UK climate change minister Ed Davey said: "I am not going to say it will be a walk in the park in Paris."

He described the deal as "a really important step" on the road to Paris.

"That's when the real deal has to be done."

Grey line
Analysis: Matt McGrath, BBC News, Lima
Peruvian environment minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal shakes hands with his colleagues after sealing an agreement in Lima - 13 December 2014
There was a good deal of optimism at the start of these talks as the recent emissions agreement between the US and China was seen as an historic breakthrough. But that good spirit seemed to evaporate in two weeks of intense wrangling between rich and poor here in Lima.

It ended in a compromise that some participants believe keeps the world on track to reach a new global treaty by the end of next year.

None of the 194 countries attending the talks walked away with everything they wanted, but everybody got something.

As well as pledges and finance, the agreement points towards a new classification of nations. Rather than just being divided into rich and poor, the text attempts to reflects the more complex world of today, where the bulk of emissions originate in developing countries.

While progress in Lima was limited, and many decisions were simply postponed, the fact that 194 nations assented to this document means there is still momentum for a deal in Paris. Much tougher tests lie ahead.

Climate deal heralds historic shift

Grey line
A delegate rests during a break at the UN climate change talks in Lima - 13 December 2014
The talks, which began on 1 December, had been due to end on Friday but ran over into the weekend
The final draft is said to have alleviated those concerns with by saying countries have "common but differentiated responsibilities".

"We've got what we wanted," Indian environment minister Prakash Javedekar told reporters, saying the document preserved the notion that richer nations had to lead the way in making cuts in emissions.

It also restored a promise to poorer countries that a "loss and damage" scheme would be established to help them cope with the financial implications of rising temperatures.

However, it weakened language on national pledges, saying countries "may" instead of "shall" include quantifiable information showing how they intend to meet their emissions targets.

The agreed document calls for:

An "ambitious agreement" in 2015 that reflects "differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" of each nation
Developed countries to provide financial support to "vulnerable" developing nations
National pledges to be submitted by the first quarter of 2015 by those states "ready to do so"
Countries to set targets that go beyond their "current undertaking"
The UN climate change body to report back on the national pledges in November 2015
Environmental groups were scathing in their response to the document, saying the proposals were nowhere need drastic enough.

Sam Smith, chief of climate policy for the environmental group WWF, said: "The text went from weak to weaker to weakest and it's very weak indeed."

Jagoda Munic, chairperson of Friends of the Earth International, said fears the talks would fail to deliver "a fair and ambitious outcome" had been proven "tragically accurate".

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30468048


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 17, 2014, 03:12:37 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202014/20141217_MajorBreakThrough_10942835sr_zps09864d68.jpg) (http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1418727063/835/10942835.jpg)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: reality on December 17, 2014, 10:38:38 pm
Brian Fallow: Lima's main gain - We're all in it together

5:00 AM Tuesday Dec 16, 2014

Latest climate change talks not a train wreck this time but most of the decisions have been put off till next year.

At least the global climate change conference at Lima was not a train wreck, like Copenhagen five years ago.

But most of the divisive issues which generated so much rancour during the talks have been bulldozed forward into 2015.

Achieving an agreement in Paris in a year's time which gives us a fighting chance of not rendering the planet inhospitable to us as a species remains a daunting challenge.

One important principle was preserved at Lima. The agreement to come for the post-2020 period will be "applicable to all parties" to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, that is to most countries in the world.

That is a vital step away from the 22-year-old dogma which has bedevilled the geopolitics of climate change: that the world can be neatly divided into developed countries, which must bear all the cost of curbing emissions, and the rest of the world which can concentrate on economic development.


What is equally clear is that the form of the commitments countries will undertake - "independent nationally determined contributions" in the jargon - will vary widely in their nature and level of ambition.

And Lima was unable to agree that the offers countries tabled have to be in a form that makes them able to be compared as to time-frames and base years or scope and coverage, or why they consider them fair and ambitious given their national circumstances.

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser argues that abandoning the top-down uniformity of the Kyoto Protocol is a geopolitical necessity which reflects entirely different policy environments among even the big three emitters, China, the United States and Europe.

China is prepared to commit to its emissions peaking before 2030, but not to a specific level, and to serious targets for emissions-free electricity generation.

The US Congress will not agree to be legally bound to an agreement if China is not, but the Administration has offered a target which represents a significant reduction in emissions. Europe continues to lead the pack with an offer to reduce emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Groser says that at this point the focus needs to be on a wide-ranging agreement covering say 80 per cent of global emissions rather than how far the aggregate pledges fall short of what scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate change - lest the best be the enemy of the good.

The Lima accord also agrees post-2020 pledges will represent progress beyond what countries have already undertaken to do.

That suggests New Zealand's target will have to better the 5 per cent reduction from 1990 levels which is our commitment for the period out to 2020.

Trouble is, actual emissions are running 25 per cent above 1990 levels and climbing, unconstrained by any meaningful carbon price from the emissions trading scheme.

The post-1989 "Kyoto" forests which have generated credits to offset that emissions growth will have flipped from being a net sink to a net source of emissions by the 2020s.

It is difficult to make big gains from decarbonising electricity generation when three-quarters of it is renewable already.

And nearly half of national emissions arise from the bodily functions of livestock, which are harder to redesign than the propulsion systems of vehicles, for example.

So coming up with a "respectable" target for the post-2020 period, as the Government must before May next year, will be challenging, Groser says, especially as the key legally binding ground rules for the international agreement, covering for example access to international trading and accounting for land use change and forestry, have yet to be agreed.

- NZ Herald

Read more by Brian Fallow Email Brian Fallow Save


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 22, 2014, 07:10:33 pm


Our stormy year came at a massive cost (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/our-stormy-year-came-massive-cost-6210644)


12 ways to deal with a climate change denier — the BBQ guide (http://theconversation.com/12-ways-to-deal-with-a-climate-change-denier-the-bbq-guide-26291)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: reality on December 22, 2014, 07:23:07 pm
Watchout out theres a squall coming through....bloody global warming ;)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 09, 2015, 12:11:44 am
Watchout out theres a squall coming through....bloody global warming ;)


There are a shitload of scientists who can produce reports and studies proving that global warming (and the resultant climate change) is happening.

And their reports and studies are peer-reviewed.

The funny thing is that the denialists can only produce a few dodgy scientists who have been discredited by the mainstream scientific community.

Yet the denialists keep on desperately clutching at straws.

Talk about idiots!



Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 09, 2015, 12:11:51 am

from Radio New Zealand....

New Zealand glaciers retreating rapidly

RNZ NEWS | 9:50AM - Tuesday, 06 January 2015

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Global%20Warming%20Articles%20Pix/20150106_FranzJosefGlacier_zps3e212bad.jpg) (http://www.radionz.co.nz/assets/news/30905/four_col_glacier_very.jpg)
Franz Josef Glacier. — Photo: AFP.

SCIENTISTS say it could take hundreds of years to reverse any of the damage to the Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers brought on by climate change.

The West Coast attractions had retreated rapidly over the last five years, and tour-operators could no longer take punters through on foot.

Until a couple of years ago people could walk straight up to the Franz Josef Glacier, and before April last year it was the same on Fox Glacier.

The ice had been melting since 2008, following decades of steady growth.

But it was now back to historic lows and that meant it was too far, and too dangerous to make the trip by foot.

Chief executive of Fox Glacier Guiding Rob Jewell said that meant fewer people taking tours.

“We've had a reduction in our revenue. Obviously the flying only access is a higher price point and some travellers budgets can't quite stretch that far,” he said.

“That's certainly meant that we've seen a bit of a reduction in numbers.”

Glaciologist at Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre Andrew Mackintosh said on current predictions the glaciers would become even smaller, harder to get to and less spectacular.

He said glaciers naturally advanced and retreated but they were now doing so faster — and humans were at least in part to blame.

“That includes a natural component, and it includes a human component. Answering that question is never completely straightforward but the changes we've seen recently have been so large and unprecedented that it's very likely it's had a ... human element.”

Another glaciologist at the Research Centre Brian Anderson agreed things were not looking good for the two West Coast glaciers.

He said undoing the damage caused by humans would be a hard task.

“There will be short-lived readvances because that's what [glaciers] do, but overall it's going to retreat,” he said.

“Certainly in this century we're not going to be able to pull it back. It's going to take a sustained effort over quite a few centuries ... to bring the temperature back to the level it has been in the last century.”

Department of Conservation's conservation services manager for the area Wayne Costello said those tourists heading in for a closer look could also learn an important lesson.

“It's a place that's a really visible example for us to look at what is happening as a result of humans looking at the planet,” he said.

“Maybe it's a way in which we can engage with your everyday person to say, well we have to think about how we're living our lives differently.”

Mr Jewell said he was hopeful the tide would turn for the glacier and they would be able to get groups through on foot again in the future.

But glaciologists said on current trends, the helicopter tours were likely to be a long-term fixture.


Radio NZ Summer Report audio:

 • It could take centuries to reverse damage to NZ glaciers (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/summerreport/audio/20163038/it-could-take-centuries-to-reverse-damage-to-nz-glaciers)


Related news stories:

 • Glaciers in Andes shrinking (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/126321/glaciers-in-andes-shrinking)

 • Glacier landings look set to increase (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/226579/glacier-landings-look-set-to-increase)

 • Glacier tourism could be under threat (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/244075/glacier-tourism-could-be-under-threat)

 • West Antarctic glaciers melting — NASA (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/244245/west-antarctic-glaciers-melting-nasa)


http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/263094/nz-glaciers-retreating-rapidly (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/263094/nz-glaciers-retreating-rapidly)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: nitpicker1 on January 09, 2015, 11:21:58 am


Deep sea waves focus of global study


NZ Newswire

January 7, 2015, 10:50 pm

International researchers are coming together to investigate a powerful force that lurks in the Tasman Sea.

But there are no jaws, teeth, tentacles or stingers involved, and this powerful giant exists hundreds of metres below the surface.

It's known to scientists as a sub-surface wave, and it's impact on the global climate and marine ecosystem is significant, Hobart-based biological oceanographer Peter Strutton says.

"The waves that happen deep in the ocean can be really large: 100 metres or more," the University of Tasmania associate professor told AAP.

"And the middle of the Tasman Sea is a global hot spot with its strong tides and ridge along the sea floor, like a mountain ridge."

It means that in the waters between New Zealand and Tasmania, waves gather pace and strength during a journey lasting about four days and covering 1400km before slamming into a shelf off the island state's east coast.

Dr Strutton will be one of more than 60 scientists on two ships bound for the heart of Tasman Sea where they will make 15 moorings and monitor the waves and where the energy goes once they break.

"We will run a line from the bottom to the surface and measure things like water density and salinity as it passes," he said.

"This study is going to help us understand how these internal waves bring nutrients from the ocean floor and stimulate activity by providing food for plankton."

The measurements will also provide a better understanding of how cold, low-density water from the depths comes to the surface in an essential ecological mixing process that moderates oceanic water temperature and takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

"Understanding these processes is a critical step in predicting our climate," Dr Strutton said.

Sub-surface waves exist across the globe and researchers from five Australian universities are involved in the study, as well as others from the United States.

The first of two US vessels - the Roger Revelle and Falkor - will set off from Hobart on Saturday to begin the research.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/25924789/deep-sea-waves-focus-of-global-study/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...Wave Patterns[edit]

Various subsurface currents conflict at times, causing bizarre wave patterns. One of the most noticeable of these is the Maelstrom. The word is derived from Nordic words meaning to grind and stream. Essentially, the maelstrom is a large, very powerful whirlpool, a large swirling body of water being drawn down and inward toward its center. This is usually the result of tidal currents.

Subsurface currents have a large effect on life on earth. They flow beneath the surface of the water, allowing them to be relatively free of external influence. Thus, they function like clockwork, providing nutrient transportation, water transfer, etc., as well as affecting the ocean floor and submarine processes. ...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_currents

 


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 17, 2015, 10:54:11 am
(http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics6/cartoon-global-cooling-future.png)

(http://www.iceagenow.com/Cooling_is_the_New_Warming.png)

(http://www.iceagenow.com/IceAgeEnding.jpg)



Global-warming Hoax Unraveling — Someone Tell Obama

There’s one kind of disaster that will most assuredly never happen:

The one everybody is worried about.

History teaches this. While Winston Churchill warned of Adolf Hitler’s dangerousness, others pooh-poohed the matter and few foresaw WWII. Prior to then, how many expected the Great Depression? Did any Pompeians predict the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D.? How many Romans worried about the Goths sacking the Eternal City in 410? Did medieval Europeans foresee the Black Death disaster of the 14th century? You can go right down the list.

This brings us to what everyone is worried about today: global-war…er…climate chan…uh…. What’s the latest iteration? Ah, yes, “global climate disruption.” However they change the name, though, they can’t change a simple fact:

The global-warming agenda is increasingly being revealed for the scam it is.

There was the Climategate scandal of 2009, in which “scientists” at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were conspiring to suppress data that contradicted their global-warming agenda; there was the British judge who ruled, in a lawsuit to ban Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth from UK government schools, that the movie contained nine significant errors; there was the revelation that the claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed with the AGW (man-caused global warming) thesis was bunk. Now a mainstream publication, the UK’s Telegraph, has published a scathing denunciation of warmist propaganda. Citing information from Steven Goddard’s blog Real Science, Christopher Booker writes:

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s] US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

Booker also asks what it means when a theory has to be promoted with continual “fudging” of the data. Is it science at all? Perhaps, however, he has those English manners that preclude one from saying what I, in my colonial brashness, will put bluntly: these so-called scientists aren’t merely “fudging.”

They’re lying.

If they were Pinocchio, their collective nose would be the size of our national debt. If they were shepherds, they could be a whole boys’ school that cried wolf. Despite this, Western pseudo-elites are still running around like Chicken Little.

For example, while Iraq becomes an Islamic state, Russia moves on Ukraine, China angles to be the world’s hegemon, and the United States is in moral freefall,

Barack Obama gives a commencement speech at the University of California, Irvine, condemning climate-change “deniers” (translation: people in touch with reality). He also recently commended New Zealand prime minister John Key for being a fellow Chicken Little in his “crusade” against climate change, and Obama’s EPA continues to unconstitutionally enforce regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions, even though calling CO2 “carbon” is a lot like calling H2O “hydrogen.”

Of course, Obama and Key have much company in their hen house. Former treasury secretary Hank Paulson, for instance, recently wrote the following in the New York Times (hat tip: Thomas Lifson):

We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.


This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.

We need to act now.

Yes, act now, think later. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

The irony of this is that even if the AGW thesis were correct, there would be little we could do about it. First, China and India — which together boast 36 percent of the world’s population — are rapidly building coal-fired power plants. Any Western reduction in CO2 will be dwarfed by these behemoths’ increases alone. Add to this other CO2-happy developing nations and Russia, and the fruitlessness of the uniquely Western climate-change obsession becomes apparent.

Second, there are scientists who believe that AGW is a reality, but said long ago that it was too late to do anything about it, anyway. So are we cooked? Now the good news.

Whatever the cause, there’s no reason to be afraid of the big bad climate change.

Not if it’s in the direction of rising mercury, that is.

Contrary to the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, it seems a warmer planet’s benefits far outweigh its downsides. Like eating? Note that greater temperatures probably mean more arable land. In addition, higher CO2 levels increase plant yields 30-plus percent across species; this begets better crops. This is why botanists pump the gas into their greenhouses, mind you. It’s why the age of the dinosaurs was one of dense foliage — CO2 levels were five to 10 times what they are today. The gas is not a pollutant. It’s plant food.

Moreover, as the aforementioned Jurassic CO2 levels indicate, climate change is not unprecedented. There was a time when the waters surrounding Florida were 300 feet lower and another when they were 100 feet higher. The Earth was completely or almost completely covered with snow and ice during the Cryogenian period while during another time the snow and ice were virtually gone. There have been four or five major ice ages and numerous minor ones; there are 100,000-year glacial periods followed by 12,000-year interglacials (approximations) and 1,500-year cycles of heating and cooling within them. Climate is no more stable than are people.

Speaking of which, there’s a philosophical point to be made here. The liberal climate alarmists are the first to say that humans are just animals, just part of nature like an amoeba. If this is true, however, wouldn’t we then just be another “natural” factor in naturally occurring climate change?

At most, though, we appear a negligible factor. This raises a question: Why won’t Obama, Gore, Paulson, and the other Chicken Littles fly the coop of climate fear?

One reason is that everyone needs something to give his life meaning, and, absent true faith, an environmental crusade in Gaia’s name perhaps best fits the bill. This means that, for some, leaving the Church of Warmism is like a jihadist leaving Islam. Related to this is that when you’ve devoted a good part of your life and your passion and energy to a cause, it’s hard to admit you’re wrong.

But there’s another reason. Many individuals and companies, such as those producing ethanol, are profiting via doomsday prophesying. For instance, Al Gore — perhaps one of history’s most shameless con-men — “could become [the] world's first carbon billionaire,” reported The Telegraph in 2009. This, not to mention all the climate-change grants governments give malleable scientists for “research.”

What this means is that, despite its unraveling, the climate-change con will be around for a while longer. But driven by a combination of naiveté (gullible followers), envy, and cash, at least we can say that the “green” movement has certainly earned its name

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/18555-global-warming-hoax-unraveling-someone-tell-obama


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 18, 2015, 12:51:39 pm

(http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo92/RasputinDude/Cartoons%202015/20150116_LeavingTheHolocene_zps4ecf313d.jpg) (https://twitter.com/davpope/status/556245505341026304/photo/1)


Title: Re: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”
Post by: Yak on January 18, 201