Xtra News Community 2
July 11, 2020, 08:39:27 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

UN warmalist bull**it claim on himalayan glacier melt exposed


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: UN warmalist bull**it claim on himalayan glacier melt exposed  (Read 150 times)
Yak
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 6541



« on: January 19, 2010, 05:45:54 am »

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the claim which it said was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming.

But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.

 Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped.

The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview.

Mr Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine.

He said that Dr Hasnain made the assertion about 2035 but admitted it was campaigning report rather than an academic paper that was reviewed by a panel of expert peers.

Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Prof Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high".

The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet a year and most are far lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7011713/UN-report-on-glaciers-melting-is-based-on-speculation.html

I had to search far and wide for this after hearing about it on a talkback show. 
The pro warmalist media are reluctant to give news detrimental to the cause, it seems.........
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Magoo
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2010, 05:52:57 am »

And it would also seem we were listening to the same talkback show.

Perhaps we could have Bob Carter for vice president Yak.

Report Spam   Logged
robman
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2197



« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2010, 05:54:06 am »

It unravels, thread by thread....
Report Spam   Logged

I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
Yak
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 6541



« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2010, 06:03:11 am »

Quote
Perhaps we could have Bob Carter for vice president Yak.

Hmmmmmm.........
What are his views on population control?
Report Spam   Logged

Magoo
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2010, 06:32:36 am »

Quote
What are his views on population control?
I'll have that job.       
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2010, 09:11:50 am »

.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2010, 09:16:35 am »

.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2010, 10:10:21 am »

.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2010, 12:12:35 pm »

Records of more than a century of weather data from the southern hemisphere's oldest, coldest weather station have revealed an extraordinary burst of warming since 1950 -- but it's not all caused by global warming.

The base at the Islas Orcadas, a remote band of land that looks as if it's been whipped off the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, was founded by Scots in 1903, and has been manned by Argentines ever since, all of whom collected daily weather data.

That longevity is paying off in terms of getting a better grasp of southern climate changes, explains NOAA climate researcher Susan Solomon and her colleagues in the Jan. 2010 issue of the Journal of Climate.

The Orcadas weather data were the culmination of years of searching for old records that contained daily weather information from the Antarctic. Such records are especially useful because they reveal extreme warm and cold weather days, all of which are lost in the easier to locate monthly mean records, she explained.

"It turns out to be a fascinating record," Solomon told Discovery News. "What it shows is that there have been changes in the extremes and changes in the actual cycles."

The Orcadas record shows that summers at the base have been warming up since the 1950s. However the warming is probably not primarily caused by global warming, Solomon said.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/antarctic-weather-station-warming-ozone.html

Im sure they cant know what they are talking about  Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
bennyboo
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 324


« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2010, 02:23:39 pm »

And it would also seem we were listening to the same talkback show.

Perhaps we could have Bob Carter for vice president Yak.




Really interesting series of clips there Magoo.  Facts presented in context dont make things alarming at all - interesting that global cooling is forecast from at least 2007 (the year the clips were loaded to youtube) especially now in 2010 when many parts of the northern hemisphere have had the coldest winter in decades.
Report Spam   Logged
Yak
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 6541



« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2010, 02:37:21 pm »

I wish I could watch video clips!

Its not a good time for the UN warmalists, the "hockey stick" exposed, the Arctic gaining ice instead of losing it as they forecast, and now this
Report Spam   Logged

bennyboo
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 324


« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2010, 02:50:10 pm »




The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010



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.
 

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.
This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.
However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz  Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.
On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years.
As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).

For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.
But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.

For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.
It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer.

'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’
As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted.

Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole.
In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow.

‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.

For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’

Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’

Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’

He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?
Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.

William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’
The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0d1fkdAYa


Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2010, 03:41:14 pm »

The Scientific Proposition: Global Warming

7 December 2009 | by Dr Willem de Lange

Is “Climate Change” worse than IPCC projections?

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made up of three groups; a combination of activists (Greenpeace), scientists and administrators who write the actual scientific reports, government representatives (policymakers) who write the “Summary for Policymakers”, a Synthesis Report where a political interpretation is made of the science considered during the reporting process.

Since its establishment, the IPCC has produced a series of Assessment Reports (1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007). Each successive report provides a revised (downwards) prediction of the possible effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on global temperature and sea level.

 

What has happened in NZ?

During the 20th century, New Zealand climate warmed 1°C and sea level rose by 0.17m. The IPCC (2007) report stated that climate change is mostly due to human activities since 1950; over the last 50 years of the 20th century New Zealand climate warmed 0.4°C and sea level rose by 0.07m i.e. at approximately the same rates as observed during the first 50 years of the 20th century.

Over the first 9 years of the 21st century, New Zealand climate has cooled 0.2°C and sea level has fallen by 0.03m despite the increasing atmospheric CO2concentration.

 

Carbon dioxide is a poor predictor of temperature

There is no match between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature (either increasing or decreasing) in the period from 1950 that the IPCC maintains the anthropogenic emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide has caused a catastrophic increase in temperature:

UNEP withdraws ‘hockey stick’

In 1995, the IPCC released its 5-yearly report on climate change [in a blaze of publicity], which contained the now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence on global climate".

In their previous 1990 report the IPCC included this graph:



Fig.1 - Global temperature since 900 AD


The graph clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which are clearly recorded in the historical literature of the time; the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer and the Little Ice Age (LIA) as suggested by John King.

This graph shows that temperatures during the MWP were higher than those of today while it was much cooler during the LIA. Historical records from all over Europe and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent  and well-documented `frost fairs' being held on the river ice.

In 1999, a new paper published in `Geophysical Research Letters’ altered the whole landscape of how past climate history was to be interpreted by the greenhouse sciences. Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of what has come to be known as the ‘Hockey Stick’ as it obliterated the MWP and the LIA and showed a dramatic upturn in temperature in the period, 1850-1998.



Fig.2 - The `Hockey Stick'


The hockey stick graph appears to show that the Earth’s climate was relatively stable from AD1000 to 1900, and then suddenly began to change, with temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rising dramatically to 1998, a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year.  This graph was central to the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. As soon as the TAR came out, it became gospel. The hockey stick was hotly defended and attacked by scientists on both sides of the debate. The hockey stick was inconsistent with large volumes of instrumental records such as the de Bilt in the Netherlands (temperature records since 1706) and the highly regarded 1,000 year old Chinese records.

Tree rings are the primary proxy behind the `Hockey Stick'. Tree rings are only laid during the growing season, not the whole year, and so they tell us little or nothing about annual climate. For example, 2000 was a warm winter and early spring in the north-eastern USA, followed by an unusually cool summer and autumn. Since the two events are largely self-cancelling, the year may finish as fairly average, but the tree rings would only record the cool summer and thus give a completely false impression of the full-year temperature. Tree rings do not record night temperatures since photosynthesis only occurs in the daytime. Yet winter and night temperatures are an essential component of what we understand by the concept `annual mean temperature'.

All a tree ring can tell us is whether the combined micro-environmental conditions during the growing season were favourable to tree growth or not. This is because tree rings are influenced by numerous factors other than temperature, such as rainfall, sunlight, cloudiness, pests, competition, forest fires, soil nutrients, frosts and snow duration. Thus they are not even a good daytime temperature proxy for the few months of the growing season. Other proxies such as isotopes in coral, ice, minerals and sediments are vastly superior.

Mann used Bristlecone and foxtail pine species as his proxy (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing the "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecone do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (showing as enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).

There are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. One of the most significant of these is what is referred to as the “Yamal Data”.

The Yamal data was collected by a pair of Russian scientists in the late 1990’s, and published in 2002. In their interpretation of the data, Yamal showed little by way of a twentieth century temperature trend. Strangely though, Keith Briffa's version in Briffa's 2000 paper in Quaternary Science Reviews, which was published before the Russians', was somewhat different. While it was very similar to the Russians' version for most of the length of the record, Briffa's version had a sharp uptick at the end of the twentieth century, another hockey stick.  The Yamal Data was used in the reconstructions by Mann, among others, to generate the hockey stick.

When scientists started to look at the Yamal Data, they asked Briffa for his data to see why the Russian analysis was so very different. Briffa refused and was supported by Science magazine. However in July 2008, a new Briffa paper appeared in the pages of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, the Royal Society's journal for the biological sciences. The new paper discussed five Eurasian tree ring datasets, which, in fairly standard Hockey Team fashion, were unarchived and therefore not susceptible to detailed analysis. Among these five were Yamal and the equally notorious Tornetrask chronology. Steven McIntyre observed that the only series with a strikingly anomalous twentieth century was Yamal.

However the Royal Society had a clear and robust policy on data availability and 14 months later, McIntyre was given notice that Briffa had posted the data on his website.
But the Data was not clear. Briffa had merged a number of sites, some up to 400 km distant despite there being ample data from nearby sites.

McIntyre therefore prepared a revised dataset, replacing Briffa's selected 12 cores with the 34 from Khadyta River. The revised chronology completely removes the sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century, leaving a twentieth century without a significant temperature trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann's work, was gone.

The hockey stick has now been withdrawn from the IPCC web site in the past few months with no accompanying fanfare; removing the basis for the IPCC concern for catastrophic warming.

 

HadCrut and de Bilt Temperature Data

Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HadCrut), is part of the British Meteorological Office and one of the world’s foremost climate-monitoring sites. HadCrut’s data shows that the planet isn’t warming at the moment, and hasn’t for the past 10 years or so.



The HadCrut data clearly indicate that cooling is occurring this century; the trend of which is below the confidence limits for the IPCC’s 4th assessment report in 2007 (AR4).

Non-linear analysis of de Bilt and HadCrut temperature data shows cyclical temperature variation over various timeframes; this behaviour being consistent with solar forcing and not CO2 forcing, with variations in solar activity being the primary cause of the observed temperature trends.

Linear analysis of these data sets confirm the same rate of warming pre and post 1950, there being no significant difference between the rate of warming at the end of the 20th century and the rate of warming from 1909-1941 during a prior warming phase, that cooling (no warming) has occurred this century, and that the temperature this century is below the lower confidence limit of the IPCC AR4 temperature projections.

 

Solar Forcing – climate change is mainly natural

Variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the oceans will control the rate at which the oceans warm. This is influenced at long time scales by changes in the Earth’s orbit. At short time scales there are changes in the amount of sunlight associated with the sunspot cycles. These changes are small, but due to the ability of the oceans to store heat it may be possible to have a cumulative effect as sunspot cycles wax and wane. However, the main control is the amount of cloud and ice cover. Clouds and sea ice reflect sunlight before it can be absorbed by the oceans, and is referred to as albedo. Albedo changes have a greater influence on climate than the Greenhouse Effect, and are usually invoked to produce the catastrophic consequences of “Climate Change” (aka Accelerated Global Warming).

Oceans lose heat through evaporation (53%), infra-red radiation (41%) and conduction (6%). The Greenhouse Effect can slow the loss of the infra-red radiation, thereby warming the atmosphere but not the oceans. However, evaporation accounts for more than half the heat loss. Evaporation produces clouds, and hence there is a feedback loop – warming the oceans results in more evaporation, producing more clouds, which increases albedo, which cools the oceans. This is exactly what was observed during The Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (TOGA COARE) that was set up to investigate the Pacific Warm Pool – the warmest ocean water in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean. COARE also found that rainfall would cool the ocean surface, so increased evaporation producing rain is another feedback loop.

What does this have to do with the 20th Century? Well the observed climate change is consistent with variations in albedo and associated ocean warming and cooling, suggesting that it is just a natural cycle. This pattern of behaviour is evident in palaeoclimate data for most of the last 10,000 years. None of this is simulated in climate models, which instead focus on the 20th Century increase in CO2, CH4 and a few other greenhouse gases and infer from a correlation with global temperature that the greenhouse effect is driving temperature.

However, it is also correct that changing ocean temperatures affect the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere as the solubility of these gases in water changes with water temperature. At annual and 2-7 year time scales it is clear that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is strongly driven by the ocean. At longer time scales it is also clear that the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases lags behind, and therefore is driven by, temperature. Once again the oceans are the likely control on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The IPCC position requires that for 50-100 year periods everything works in reverse, which still show an oceanic influence at shorter time periods. It is more likely that the warming of the oceans since the Little Ice Age is a major contributor to the observed increase in CO2. Carbon isotopic ratios indicate that while there is a contribution from the burning of fossil fuels, it is of the order 1-5 percent of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

Storm Trends

Since many coastal hazards are affected by climate, I have been involved in researching climate variability and its effect at the coast and I have been an advisor to Civil Defence on tsunami and storm surge hazard since the mid-1980s.

IPCC policy makers often claim that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that more intense storm surges and sea-level rise along with increased cyclonic activity and heightened storm surges are expected from the rise in sea surface temperature now observed at all latitudes and in all oceans.

However data for the number of land-falling hurricanes in the United States between 1851 and 2005 shows a reduction in the magnitude and the frequency of such events.

Multi-decadal to centennial variation in storm frequency, magnitude and paths correlates best with solar frequency rather than CO2.



It is generally accepted among climate scientists that a cooler climate will produce increased storm activity as shown in the Little Ice Age historical records and that a warmer climate will produce decreased storm activity as shown below:



US Landfalling Hurricanes by Category and Decade 1851-2005.
Pielke et al 2008, Natural Hazards Review: 29-42

Sea Level Rise

During the 20th Century, the rate of sea level rise slowed, but with significant decadal variations.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2007) stated that satellite sea level data suggest an increasing rate of sea level rise in the future. However for each of the ICCP reports the preceding projection for sea level rise has been revised downwards as follows:
1990: 0.31 - 1.10 m per century
1995: 0.20 - 0.86 m per century
2001: 0.09 - 0.88 m per century (0.31-0.49 m most likely)
2007: 0.18 - 0.59 m per century (±0.20 m uncertainty)

These projections compared with a historic trend in sea level rise of 0.15-0.20 m per century

The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.
Following the release of IPCC Second Assessment Report I also co-authored the sea level rise section of the New Zealand impact report, and same section for a revised report following the release of IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). The third report followed the trend of decreasing sea level rise projections evident in sea level rise literature, with a most likely projection of 0.44 m. However, some extreme scenarios were added at a late stage of the review process to give a wider range of projections from 0.09-0.88 m. There was little support in the literature for these extremes, and my view was that a range of 0.31-0.49 m was more reasonable. I also expected future projections to be lower.
For the New Zealand 2001 report, I was asked to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at least could be accelerating. However, my own research and published literature shows that sea level fluctuates at decadal time scales. Therefore, although there was an increase in the rate of sea level rise around 1998, I expected sea level rise to slow and reverse early in the 21st Century. The underlying long-term trend, however, was a likely decrease in sea level, and there were some tide gauge data to indicate that it had started to do so. In the 1980s, the New Zealand rate was 1.8 mm per year. By 1990, it was 1.7 mm per year, and by 2001 it was 1.6 mm per year. These changes are small, and were not enough to prove that sea level rise was slowing. However, they clearly did not show that sea level rise was accelerating.

Satellite data used by the IPCC is in conflict with actual tide gauge data. Although the tide gauge data is more accurate, IPCC relies on the satellite data. Despite the IPCC's projections of continued sea level rise, sea levels have actually declined since 2001.



Sea Level Decrease

In New Zealand the process of subduction between 2 volcanic plates as occurs naturally in places like Whakatane, is also a more significant factor in sea level decrease than the theories around sea level rise.

After 2001, published studies continued to project lower global sea level rises over the 21st Century, and several reported a slowing of the rate of rise during the 20th Century. Shortly before the IPCC Assessment Report 4 was published I undertook a literature review of all sea level studies, which: projected lower levels than the IPCC Third Assessment Report review; indicated a slowing of the rate of sea level rise; emphasised the role of decadal scale fluctuations; and there was concern about the discrepancy between satellite and tide gauge sea level measurements. It was recognised that, although satellite sensing gives a better overall measurement of global sea level, satellites reported twice the rate of sea level rise being measured at the coast. It was evident that satellite data could not be combined with tide gauge data.

The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report (AR4) emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.

Despite therefore finding accelerating sea level rise, the latest IPCC assessment projects lower sea level rises than the previous ones. The methodology used to report the projections was changed to make comparisons harder, but the range of 0.18-0.59 m equates to a most likely rise of around 0.39 m. The IPCC AR4 also included an extra 0.20 m allowance for uncertainties associated with destabilisation of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Caps. Various groups have speculated that the collapse of these Ice Caps could produce a much higher additional sea level rise. In contrast, published studies that have specifically studied this contribution have concluded that given the worst possible scenarios, the maximum extra contribution is 0.18 m. Hence, the IPCC AR4 allowance is a very conservative upper bound.
What has sea level actually done so far this century? There have been large regional variations, but the global rate has slowed and is currently negative, consistent with measured ocean cooling. Claims to the contrary are unrealistic exaggerations.



Arctic Warming

Melt season air temperature have not changed for more than 50 years. Air temperature data show that 1935 was the warmest year in the Arctic. These data were presented in a study by Arctic scientist Igor Polyakov, who also showed that the warmest period in the Arctic was from the 1930s through to the 1940s.

A new Arctic study published by Håkan Grudd, of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, confirms the conclusion that the Arctic is not warmer now than it was previously.

He states: “The late twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record. On decadal to centurial timescales, periods around AD750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer.”

In addition, Danish Metrological Institute records show that the “Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now” – this was published May 13, 2009.

Warming in the arctic is predominantly at night (during the long arctic winter when there is no sunlight) and is not consistent with the Greenhouse Effect or Ice-Albedo effect.
There is a correlation between arctic warming and ocean circulation Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) highlighting the importance of ocean currents in determining air temperature in the arctic.




Sea Ice

Sea ice extent varies seasonally and is affected by such factors as:

Ocean circulation
Atmosphere circulation
Ocean temperature
Air temperature
Trends in the extent of sea ice have varied between hemispheres since 1980 when satellite measurement of sea ice area became available. The area of arctic sea ice has been decreasing at an average rate of 11.2% per decade since 1980 but is now increasing. The area of Antarctic sea ice has been increasing at an average rate of 0.7% per decade since 1980 despite the loss part of the western ice shelf.  The total area of sea ice (sum of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice) is now mid-way between the low measured in 2007 and the high measured in 2003. This observation is suggestive of natural variation and confirms that there is not an increasing trend of sea ice loss as predicted by the IPCC.

 

Ocean Acidification

The words oceans are alkaline i.e. they have a pH of greater than 7.0. The lowest pH occurs where oceans release CO2, (in the warm equatorial waters) whilst the highest pH occurs where oceans are absorbing CO2 (in the colder waters of the arctic and antarctic). The maximum measured pH reduction (0.1pH units) attributable to CO2 absorbtion is less than natural diurnal variability of oceanic pH caused by the release of CO2 by plankton respiration during darkness.

 

Sun and Climate

Variations in the intensity and composition of energy from the sun, the primary source of heat for the earth, can be expected to have a significant effect on the earth’s climate – as typified by the seasonal changes in temperature.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), or visible light travels through the atmosphere without any effect and is absorbed by the ocean resulting in warming. The 0.1% variation in TSI experienced over the11 year Schwabe cycle and the larger variations in TSI experienced over longer periods (>0.3%) can be expected to result in variations ocean warming and temperature over decadal and multidecadal timeframes.

Variations in UV intensity of the order of 1-3% typically occur over decadal and multidecadal time frames. These affect the stratosphere, and TSI reaching the earth surface.

Variation in solar cycle length also affects the energy reaching the earth surface; with shorter cycles resulting in warming and longer cycles resulting in cooling. The current sun cycle (Cycle 23) is the longest since 1700s and would be expected to be associated with cooling.

Variations in the sun geomagnetic intensity is evidenced in isotope data (14C and 10Be) and is linked to cloud formation via cosmic ray flux.


Oceans

The earth is approximately 70% ocean. The oceans gain heat from solar short-wave radiation (radiant energy) and geothermal heat flow. They obtain negligible heat input by conduction from atmosphere (negligible greenhouse effect). They loose heat to the atmosphere by evaporation (clouds), infra-red radiation and conduction.

Oceans have a very large thermal mass and store more heat than the atmosphere and are observed to be warming at same rate & time as atmosphere. This heat is stored and transported in different layers & is stored for variable lengths of time.

 

The Future




So far this Century measured climate change is not worse than IPCC projections. The Greenhouse Effect is not the dominant driver of climate change. It is likely that global cooling will continue for next 20-30 years, change beyond that point is very uncertain. The Sun may be heading into another Dalton or Maunder minimum, with sunspots potentially disappearing by 2015.

The authoritative SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets and updated through November 2008, shows a pronounced downtrend for eight full years. Not one of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC had predicted this downturn.

http://www.gauntlet.co.nz/Stories/2_02.htm
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Yak
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 6541



« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2010, 03:59:16 pm »

Wheres Dazz when you need him!

Only Dazz can explain to us how global cooling proves the earth is warming up!
Report Spam   Logged

Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2010, 04:32:54 pm »

Wheres Dazz when you need him!

Only Dazz can explain to us how global cooling proves the earth is warming up!

Eating gi normous feeds of fresh schnapper and sundry other fish  Angry
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2010, 07:01:10 pm »

Saving the World at Copenhagen

7 December 2009 | by Pat Ryan

 


Introduction

The UN draft climate change Treaty, the Copenhagen Climate Treaty that is replacing the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012, is a blueprint to save the world.

The right and blogosphere call it a rambling, incoherent polemic designed to secure employment for the political industrial carbon complex, political correctness gone mad, anti-democratic in that it imposes a new world ‘Government’ or a combination of  all of these.

Negotiators have released a draft version of the new global agreement on global warming on which there will be further deliberation at Copenhagen from 7-18 December at a meeting of 192 countries and over 15,000 officials. The draft is the result of 8 international conferences and many versions to define the issues. This may be the last chance to save the planet.

The full 181 page draft is available here

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

The draft text has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to determine its final shape, which will probably be in 2010. The draft is a like a multi-choice test with square bracketed alternative choices from which the delegates can select.

The Tipping Point

The Treaty is a real attempt to avoid the ‘tipping point’. Leading science commentators, such as HRH Prince Charles, have already defined the time at which the world will collapse environmentally and economically through failure to sign up to the Treaty; it is 9 July 2017 at 2.15 p.m.

Removing the Problem Areas

The UN has determined that by 2050, without appropriate intervention, the population could increase by 50% to over 9 billion. This increase in developed country population is clearly unsustainable given the greater developed country carbon-footprint and would reduce the ability of the world to meet its carbon responsibilities.

Following ground-breaking research in New Zealand, it is also likely that ownership of large dogs which have a far larger carbon foot-print than an urban human in Bangladesh, should face controls leading to significant reductions.
Similarly, the noted economist Lord Stern has called for an end to the eating of meat, to reduce our carbon footprint.

A Wrenching Transformation is Required

For this new treaty to be finalised, every country must sign up. This is a challenging requirement; developing countries need significant financial assistance. It is possibly less difficult for developed countries which have substantial populations that are prepared to face Al Gore’s proposed “wrenching transformation” required including:  manufacturing job losses, lower wages, reliance on public and traditional non-carbon transport options, specific carbon taxes on meat, petrol, dairy, thermally generated electricity, increases in costs associated with an emissions trading scheme, an elimination of canine populations, a reduction in problem human populations and SUV’s and  at the same time providing substantial increases in aid to developing countries such as China, Africa, South Korea and India.

The preamble is not without its limitations. While noting a requirement to increase agricultural production and at the same time reducing agricultural emissions, it fails to acknowledge that the only way to do this is to minimise meat production and dairying and encourage an organic vegetarian culture.

The only  way that communities, particularly groups worth saving, identified in the Treaty as “women, children, indigenous groups, rural groups and the elderly,” can be protected and fed while growing food in a carbon-neutral way, is for the rest of the population, particularly  the carbon gluttons of developed countries like America and New Zealand, to be significantly reduced, for meat production and consumption to end and dogs eliminated.

Giving Power to the Oppressed

The draft is inclusive, giving voice to and requiring consultation and the approval of all oppressed people who are “already in vulnerable situations”, particularly in developing countries “owing to factors such as geography, poverty, gender, age, indigenous or minority status and disability”.

The draft requires special protection for groups “[especially] ... women [and] children [the elderly and indigenous peoples] [and local communities and rural populations] [including through promoting a gender perspective and a community-based approach to adaptation] [in particular gender and youth concerns, recognizing that women and children are particularly affected by the impacts of climate change];]”
The preamble notes that without a new global warming treaty these people will be denied “the full and effective enjoyment of human rights including the right to self determination, statehood, life, food and health.”

The treaty is exhaustive in its proposed reach; even the current oil-rich producing and exporting countries such as the Gulf States are able to claim funds from the ‘Copenhagen Climate Facility’ as this treaty will reduce oil consumption and hence Gulf States’ revenues to the position where they are only about 10 times that of New Zealand per capita.

Funding for the Oppressed

The draft notes that developing countries need not do anything unless it is funded by the west:
“The extent of mitigation actions undertaken by developing countries will depend on the extent of effective provision of financial and technological support by developed country Parties.”

For developing countries, the issues are around securing enough financial resources to grow their economies in a carbon-neutral manner and thereby eliminate poverty. Given the scepticism of developing countries to the west, where many countries blithely exceed their adopted carbon reduction targets without penalty, it is reasonable for developing countries to reject becoming a formal signatory to the treaty without trillion dollar annual payments and free technology transfer and mandatory “deep cuts”, with accompanying enforcement mechanisms, against the oppressing developed countries.

Payments for Loss of Dignity Caused by Past Emissions

The draft is visionary in its breadth of vision; not only is it proposed to fund for the future, funds must be provided for the past oppression of developing countries by compensation payments for  “damage to the [developing county’s] economy and [must] also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees ;and “Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures”. [at p122]

These compensation payments are also visionary in that they apply to the current period of global stasis and cooling experienced from 1998. This stasis and cooling is clearly part of ‘climate change’ and is likely to have had a more significant effect on early-season crop failures, which have occurred over the past 4 years, contributing in no small way to “loss of dignity” for developing countries.

A “massive scaling up of financial resources” will be required to fund all the proposed activities. It is estimated that this will cost over $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an as-needed basis and levied against countries like New Zealand. Aside from straight levies and fines, taxing powers are available “including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport.”

New Zealand’s Contribution to Global Salvation

The draft Treaty proposes that developed countries shall provide “mandatory contributions”:
“[…of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties]”

This represents an annual contribution based on 2009 NZ GDP figures of $NZ 1.3 billion and for Australia $7 billion annually.

This is achievable if the New Zealand expenditure on climate change, local government and Research Science and Technology is abandoned. Once the IPCC has control over climate planning, national/ regional/local government plans and climate, there will be no need for these independent sovereign authorities; in fact, they will simply be a replication of our international responsibilities.

Alternatively, New Zealand’s current Operating Deficit is $10.4 billion. The addition of a further  annual payment of $1.3 billion does not significantly alter New Zealand’s precarious financial position.

The payments by developed countries are mandatory in the draft and signatories are required to pay billions of dollars annually to the governing body as well as to developing countries, such as China, Indonesia and South Korea “for the period up to 2012” and between $US 50-140 billion each year thereafter as well as mandatory technology transfer and payments to the prospective co-ordinated international governance modality.

Co-ordinated International Governance Modality

The use of the term ‘Government’ to portray the co-ordinated international governance structure with :
-    defined western country levies,
-    potential fining capacity against developed countries,
-    ability to set border  tariffs for non-complying developed countries,
-    large planning and funding capacity and - direction and control of tens of thousands of employees and sub-contractors, is clearly excessive.

But the International Government conspiracy theorists point to the draft at clause 38, page 18, which refers to:
“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a)  The government will be ruled by COP [the Committee of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.”

This is clearly a mistake. Someone simply failed to do an appropriate spell-check and replace government with something like “co-ordinated international governance modality”.

Private Sector Involvement

It just as fanciful as saying that this is an attempt at One World Government, to say that this proposed treaty is an attempt at the formation of a huge international public sector bureaucracy.

There are no barriers to private sector involvement. Encouragement of financial broker and bank control of ETS schemes underlies the treaty; this will provide a huge pool of potential employment for workers laid off from manufacturing firms. There are also myriad opportunities as international and national planners, and carbon trade lawyers and analysts. This change in employment itself, should contribute to a significant reduction in the employment related carbon footprint.

Similarly, General Electric (GE) has graciously volunteered to act as the banker for the trillions of dollars that this co-ordinated international governance modality and associated bureaucracy must control. GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Imelda is on record that this offer is consistent with his and President Obama’s contention that the US should “drive the climate change solution.”

Planning to Save the World

The draft treaty requires dozens of plans to be undertaken in developing countries, such as National adaption plans, Low-emission development strategies and plans; Renewable energy strategies and plans, technology action plans and technology development plans. Insurance, disaster, poverty reduction strategies and nationally sustainable development plans are also required to be undertaken and approved by the co-ordinated international governance modality.

These Plans are required to be replicated “at  the local, subnational, national and regional levels, as appropriate] [taking into account the country-driven approach, especially the indigenous peoples’ and the local communities’ views and the most vulnerable groups, such as indigenous peoples, the artisanal fishermen, women, children, and elderly, among others]; [Be [undertaken within a nationally coordinated approach] [consistent with] [integrated] [inserted] [into] local, [subnational], national [and regional] [development objectives],[programmes] [plans] [and policies] [and coordinated with regional programmes without compromising the countries’ sovereignty];] regional inter-country co-ordination.”

All these plans are required to be updated every 3-4 years by every developing country, but paid for by developed countries.

These plans will require “enhance[d] data collection to inform adaptation planning” and creation of new university and polytechnic training courses in every country in the world “that allows urban planners to integrate climate risk management into long-term development planning”.
The planning paid for by developing countries will also provide much-needed 3-4 year plans which “include governance structures that encourage efficient use and coordination of local, national and international resources.”
This seems ideally suited to planners from the former Soviet bloc who will have had substantial experience in this form of planning, although most leading New Zealand climate change planners and local government planners share a similar perspective.

Most NZ planners already propose that they manage all economic activity through co-ordinated regional, national and district resource plans as a first step in managing climate change.

In order for the planning, strategy and training components to be realised, the “Co-ordinated International Governance Modality” will need to employ at least 300 people in every developing country in the world. This alone will cost developed countries about $US3 billion per year.

Unfortunately in New Zealand there are planners and environmental consultants who point to the current cooling period and absence of current sea-level rise in New Zealand and the Islands as an indication that “global warming is not happening”.

Not only does this miss the point that the issue is now about (any) climate change, including cooling, but that such statements border on internationally treasonous. The Co-ordinated International Governance Modality will need to determine how to deal with these persons as it is possible they could affect impressionable people or young scientists with their focus on science, data and evidence instead of the approved theory, future hypothesis about climate and planning modality.

Significant Others

The proposed treaty says that the  “ government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization” will have five major departments or “windows”, under the multilateral climate change window aside from the current Secretariat, an “Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies”. These departments are;
(a) Adaptation (b) Compensation (including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components), (c) Technology; (d) Mitigation; and (e) REDD (the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries).

The cost for this has not yet been fully assessed but will fall as a levy on developed countries. The administrative costs will be in the order of $US 10-15 billion per year, although this has not yet been fully determined.

In order for this to work, developed countries will need to institute a significant emissions levy on all goods and services, in addition to any value added taxes. It will also require the sale of emission Units under Emissions Trading Scheme to corporate entities  rather than the current plan of gifting or allowance.

It is also proposed that there be a differentiated system of payment so that defaulting countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, pay significantly more both for administrative costs and to developing countries such as China, Africa, South Korea and eventually, the Gulf States.

Legally Binding Requirements

In order to make this treaty work, the mechanisms need to be legally binding. Several commentators and local politicians have suggested that the proposed treaty is optional. This is not the proposal. Clause 30 proposes:
“The provision of financial and technical support by developed country Parties for adaptation programmes in developing countries is a commitment under the Convention that must be urgently fulfilled. Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance.

The proposed treaty also provides that mitigation actions are also “legally binding economy wide [as are] absolute quantified emission reduction commitments” but this is only for developed countries.

Mitigation actions by developing countries

“… are voluntary and nationally appropriate actions, supported and enabled by technology, finance and capacity-building, which reduce or avoid emissions relative to baseline.” (at p58)

In order for financial and other support to be “legally binding” on developed countries, there will need to be enforcement measures.

While clause 46.h states that nationally, regionally and locally there must be “means and processes” for enforcement at the country level, preamble paragraph 7 (at p147) provides the option that “Recognizing also the urgency and the immediacy of the climate change problem the Parties agreed on a legally binding Adaptation Framework as set out in subsequent sections” and there is also an option (at p179) that “capacity-building support” along with money and technology transfer (at no cost) “shall be a legally binding obligation of developed country Parties, with consequences for non-compliance.”

These consequences for non-compliance include fines for developed countries (at p43).

These must be significant to avoid the Canadian-type response which is to announce significant emissions reductions then permit business as usual without penalty.

Conclusion

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer has laid out four pre-conditions for success of the proposed Copenhagen treaty:
(a)   “clear and ambitious reduction targets from industrialised countries”,
(b)   “Clarity on what major developing countries will do to limit the growth of their emissions”
(c)   “Adequate financing from industrialised countries to help developing nations adapt… and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions” and
(d)   “clarity on the institutional mechanism” that will govern the finances, which in large part must be controlled by developing nations.

This draft, while not perfect, addresses many of these concerns in a gender, gender alternative and culturally appropriate manner. New Zealand, like every other developed country, is clearly failing in its emissions reductions plan when set against the UN call for a collective emissions cut of 25-45% by 2020 for developed countries.

However there is an option that has not been considered but which in large part philosophically underlies the Green Party’s and the McGillicuddy Serious Party’s plans (Metiria Turei having been a member of both).

That is the Great Leap Backward. It will be decades before carbon minimising technologies sare available commercially. In the meantime, by adopting alternative carbon zero technologies requiring less energy usage and adopting the dietary limitations and culling measures discussed previously, New Zealand in one major initiative will eliminate its emissions problem, its employment problem and will become a developing country and hence receive potential billion dollar annual payments, free technology and payments for the hundreds of UN and thousands of NZ climate change planners required by the draft Treaty.

http://www.gauntlet.co.nz/Stories/2_03.htm
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 07:09:05 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Yak
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 6541



« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2010, 07:12:22 pm »

LOL
Report Spam   Logged

GreenThumb
Getting The Hang Of It
*
Posts: 41



« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2010, 08:53:16 pm »

this is todays  temps sourced from
http://www.worldweathernow.com/

Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2010, 09:30:37 pm »

Quote
A Wrenching Transformation is Required

For this new treaty to be finalised, every country must sign up. This is a challenging requirement; developing countries need significant financial assistance. It is possibly less difficult for developed countries which have substantial populations that are prepared to face Al Gore’s proposed “wrenching transformation” required including:  manufacturing job losses, lower wages, reliance on public and traditional non-carbon transport options, specific carbon taxes on meat, petrol, dairy, thermally generated electricity, increases in costs associated with an emissions trading scheme, an elimination of canine populations, a reduction in problem human populations and SUV’s and  at the same time providing substantial increases in aid to developing countries such as China, Africa, South Korea and India.

The preamble is not without its limitations. While noting a requirement to increase agricultural production and at the same time reducing agricultural emissions, it fails to acknowledge that the only way to do this is to minimise meat production and dairying and encourage an organic vegetarian culture.

The only  way that communities, particularly groups worth saving, identified in the Treaty as “women, children, indigenous groups, rural groups and the elderly,” can be protected and fed while growing food in a carbon-neutral way, is for the rest of the population, particularly  the carbon gluttons of developed countries like America and New Zealand, to be significantly reduced, for meat production and consumption to end and dogs eliminated.


Eating meat will be a thing of the past,Wont that be great,Yummy veggies I can't wait

have you seen the price of veggies in the shops lately.

And all dogs will be eliminated.

I can just see it now meat addicts will turn to cannibalism and with no dogs to warn us we are lunch  Grin 


Quote
Removing the Problem Areas

The UN has determined that by 2050, without appropriate intervention, the population could increase by 50% to over 9 billion. This increase in developed country population is clearly unsustainable given the greater developed country carbon-footprint and would reduce the ability of the world to meet its carbon responsibilities.

an elimination of canine populations, a reduction in problem human populations  Roll Eyes

Shit looks like what i was saying about New World Order population reduction by any means was true,Only 1 question is how do they get rid of billions of people ? to leave just 500,000,000 living on the planet,

And 2 Who decides who lives and who dies ? Maybe who is the UN World Health Organisation
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 14 queries.