Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Even more proof, if it was ever needed, that the science isn't settled.
Too much time, effort and money has been spent on researching Co2 as the major cause of GW and not enough on researching alternatives.
A nonsensical, "consensus" has been reached by scientists who tend to trust each others studies, that in my opinion causes them to lose sight of the real objective, which is to study all possibilites of the cause of climate change, natural and anthropogenic.

Hilarious.

Deniers tell us in one post that CO2 is increasing because the oceans are warming, and in the next not to worry because the oceans are absorbing the CO2 we produce.

If it were possible to mitigate climate change, wouldn't some plant or animal have evolved that ability millions of years ago? That would be a great evolutionary trait, not to live at the whim of climate why hasn’t that happened, if it's possible?

The Warming Alarmists have latched on to a new way to tax the people who produce.
This changes on a seasonal basis.
'it is for the children'
'animals have feelings'
'respect the earth'
'don't flush'
'drive 55'
I want you to read the warning label and enjoy your cig.
If you don't read, blame Darwin.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Hilarious.
Deniers tell us in one post that CO2 is increasing because the oceans are warming, and in the next not to worry because the oceans are absorbing the CO2 we produce.

Which "denier" said CO2 is increasing because the oceans are warming? What period of time was he/she talking about?

First impression, is different posters, different circumstances.

Invest in nature now, save trillions later: study

Investing billions today to protect threatened ecosystems and dwindling biodiversity would reap trillions in savings over the long haul, according to a UN-backed report issued Friday.

More than a billion of Earth's poorest denizens depend directly on coral reefs, forests, mangroves, aquifers and other forms of "natural capital" to eke out a living.

Unless world leaders take swift action to halt the accelerating depletion of these resources, the result could be hunger, conflict and environment refugees, the study warned.

"Recognising and rewarding the value delivered to society by the natural environment must become a policy priority," said Pavan Sukhdev, who headed The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) paper released in Brussels.

Governments have an economic interest in providing tax and other incentives to spur a switch from short-term profits through exploitation to long-term stewardship of natural resources, the report argued.

An annual investment of some 45 billion dollars in expanding protected areas -- on land and at sea -- would secure benefits of the order of four or five trillion dollars per year over a period of decades, said Sukhdev.

One case cited described the replanting last year of nearly 12,000 hectares (30,000 acres) of mangroves in southern Vietnam. The initiative cost about one million dollars, but will save annual expenditures on dyke maintenance of well over seven million dollars.

"Whereas climate change is a global issue with local ramifications, biodiversity is a collection of local issues," Sukhdev said in an interview with AFP.

Such examples could -- and should -- be multiplied thousands of times over, he said.

With less than a month before the Copenhagen climate summit tasked with forging a vital accord on climate change, carving out a major place in the deal for forests is cited as the most urgent of 10 recommendations.

Tropical forests in particular can play a double role in reducing the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Deforestation accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions," making it a critical target for emissions cuts, Sukhdev said.

"But forests are also today's biggest mitigation engine because they are capturing 15 percent of the total carbon dioxide we emit," he added.

Expanding that capacity to soak up dangerous CO2 should also be an integral part of any climate agreement, he argued.

After unsustainable use of land and oceans, climate change is the second major driver of biodiversity loss and the withering of so-called "ecosystem services" that humans wring from nature.

Earlier this year G20 nations vowed to keep global average temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times.

But for some ecosystems that may be too little too late.

Tropical coral reefs sustain half a billion people worldwide but are already in a downward spiral after an increase of less than 1.0 C (1.8 F), say marine biologists.

"Five hundred million people who will have to be looked after. What are you going to do if -- more likely 'when'-- that problem hits you?" asked Sukhdev.

Another priority should be scrapping subsidies that drive economic activity that damages the environment, the report said.

The most obvious target are those for fossil fuels. "Between price and production subsidies, there's something like 240-300 billion dollars worth every year," Sukhdev said.

The TEEB report, supported by the UN Environment Programme, was launched by the European Commission in 2007 after G8 and major emerging economies called for a global study on the economics of biodiversity.

Global warming a growing threat to Arctic reindeer

On Norway's border with Russia, the consequences of climate change are affecting the reindeer population as rising temperatures hit food stocks and industry growth eats into vital grazing land.

"Over the past three years, I've had to give some hay to my 800 reindeer during the coldest months. It's more expensive and it gives me more work," said Jan Egil Trasti, a reindeer herder from the native Sami people.

The reason: the lichen his animals graze on has become tougher to find as winter temperatures rise. The snow thaws, and along with rain, then freezes anew -- covering the ground in layers impervious to all but the most tenacious reindeer.

Grazing land is also disappearing under the weight of industry as buildings, pipelines, roads and other infrastructure increasingly dot old pastures.

Trasti's nomadic ancestors have raised these beasts for hundreds of years. His grandfather worked the Russian tundra before moving to the Norwegian coast.

"I have it in my blood. I hope one of my sons will take over," the herder said. He has, though, a hint of doubt in his eyes, his meagre earnings well below the average Norwegian salary.

Only a minority of Sami -- some 3,000 -- make their living raising and herding in Norway, home to around 240,000 reindeer.

In this month of November, just weeks ahead of a key UN climate summit in Denmark, snow has not yet blanketed the flora in the Far North.

Indeed temperatures in this region near the Barents Sea are unseasonably mild, above zero degrees Celsius.

In the past, when the snows have come, they have generally fallen on dry ground, whereas now they fall on lichen engorged with water.

Trasti is no scientist, and environmental experts hesitate to link specific weather events to long-term climate change, but trends over the last several decades have clearly shown the Arctic hit hard by global warming

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Global warming a growing threat to Arctic reindeer

In September, a study in the journal Science reported dramatic effects on animals in the Arctic due to a one-degree Celsius warming over the past 150 years.

The Arctic tends to warm three times faster than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere because of a phenomenon called Arctic amplification -- a separate study in the same journal noted that summer temperatures were some 1.4 degrees Celsius warmer than they should have been by the year 2000.

Jonathan Colman, specialist in "reindeer ecology" at the University of Oslo, explained that sometimes "there's wet ice in the lichen."

"It gets into their stomachs and they can't digest the food."

To avoid losing precious livestock, the Sami are forced to move reindeer to drier ground, meaning it is more important than ever to respect the tradition of driving herds across the entire north of the nation.

An animal can sell for 240 euros (359 dollars), and its meat for around seven euros a kilogramme (10.46 dollars per 2.2 pounds).

Trasti can make extra money selling the hides or antlers to tourists, and also gets compensation if his animals are killed by predators.

Norwegian Sami follow the herd with vehicles, but their cousins in Russia still accompany the animals with sleds, camping as they go.

But the drive, and the ability to follow the reindeer, has been increasingly hampered by industrialisation.

An iron ore mine which was closed down 15 years ago has re-opened nearby, while elsewhere liquid gas terminals, wind farms and roads are dotted across, or separate, traditional pastures.

The International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry has expressed regret that "the herders have only a marginal influence on the development of their own traditional lands."

That's despite a law that "Norway was built on the territory of two people, the Sami and the Norwegians," said Christina Henriksen, a Sami who coordinates an aid programme for native peoples in the Arctic region.

"For me, being a Sami means herding reindeer," said Trasti, who does not speak his native language.

"My parents weren't allowed to speak Sami at school in the 60's," he said, and out of guilt, they "didn't teach us the language."

For the moment though, reindeer numbers are holding up under the strain of global warming, but that's a fact Colman puts down to their very resilience.

"If reindeer weren't as adaptable, there wouldn't be any left," he said.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

fishaholic wrote:

<quoted text>
If you continue to believe that "AGW is real and the science is in", and you quote your research from youtube, then something is wrong. Is that where the IPCC gets their data from? Apparently, since you both drink for the same bucket of kool-aid. Continuous posting of crap like you post will change noone's mind on this forum so why bother?

list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom United States

National Academy of Sciences

A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts....

We call on world leaders to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.

Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Royal Society, United Kingdom

As a matter of fact almost every major scientific body around the world understands that man is contributing to climate change.

fishaholic you can not argue science since the deniers dont have any, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
UN IPCC expert reviewer
and UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant
Dr. Richard Courtney

"UN IPCC expert reviewer" = I asked for the pre-press document.
"UK-based climate consultant" = I tell business what they want to hear.

http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-exper...

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
"UN IPCC expert reviewer" = I asked for the pre-press document.
"UK-based climate consultant" = I tell business what they want to hear.
http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-exper...

You need to sort out the "invited" reviewers/editors who were asked to provide input. Do you have a source which tells you who is who?

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>that's a big article. well written. don't know if I'll finish it tonight. there are some beefs with it. first, and I haven't finished yet but, "They argue that during the last few years there has been a shift in understanding about the dominant role of the sun on
the earth’s climate throughout the last 11,000 years and especially
over the last 60 years. They wrote: The IPCC dismissed any
significant link between solar variability and climate on the
grounds that changes in irradiance were too small..

I'm thrilled that you are reading the paper. Now you will need to look at the references in the skeptical science web site.
I am familiar with Usoskin 2005, first the very last paragraph of the paper will tell you that no data has been considered after 1975. Secondly the TSI reconstructions in Usoskin are compared to Mann's Hockey Stick. Mann's hockey stick has come under much controversy. One of the main issues in Mann's hockey is the limited sample sized and location. As well as the mixing of data. Mann uses tree ring reconstructions and marries that reconstructed data with the current record, apples and oranges. If you open the actual paper and look at the TSI reconstructions, they do not mimic the graph shown by skeptical science. A study that does not consider the years since 1975 can hardly be said to support a conclusion that the last 30 years of TSI do not match the temperature data.
The graph shown by skeptical science is the Lockwood reconstruction. This is the most relied upon study by the IPCC. There are many problems with Lockwood in that it is a study of high value sunspots. The graph takes the max number of sunspots and smooths it over the 11 year cycle.
The problem with this is the high number of sunspots is not always an indicator of solar activity. Ex. The highest number of sunspots in the 20th century occurred in 1957, cycle 19. However this was a short lived event and sunspot number dropped off quickly leaving SSN value for cycle 19 at 3.4.
Cycle 22, started in 1986, did not achieve the high number of sunspots of cycle 19 but had a higher number of sunspots for a longer period of time. Cycle 22 also had a higher number of spots in the minimum than experienced in any other cycle of the 20th century. SSN value for cycle 22 was 12.3, significantly more than cycle 19's 3.4.
If you put a pot of water on the stove and turn it to high, then turn it off, it will lose heat faster than if you simply reduced the heat to a 3 or 4 on a 10 point scale. This is what happened in the last three solar cycles. Cycle 21, SSN value 12.2, cycle 22, SSN value 12.3 and cycle 23, SSN value, 10.8. NASA estimated that solar activity in the last three cycles had an increase in minimum of .05%, looks like a small number but for TSI, it's huge.
Scarfetti,(sp) study is a look at solar values in computer models and concludes that alot of info about solar activity is not included in the models and that the models need to include the most recent information on solar activity.
Most of the studies cited by skeptical science will conclude that there is not enough info known about solar activity and more study is needed.
Open those studies look at the scope of the paper and the various reconstructions. And remember look at what the reconstructions the TSI values are being compare to. There are many reconstructions of temperatures that do not mimic the Mann, Jones, Moberg et al temperatures from tree rings. But if you want to show that TSI and temperature diverge after 1975, you would compare TSI to the hockey stick and you would get what you are looking for.

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom United States
National Academy of Sciences
A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts....
We call on world leaders to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Royal Society, United Kingdom
As a matter of fact almost every major scientific body around the world understands that man is contributing to climate change.
fishaholic you can not argue science since the deniers dont have any, lol.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

I'd rather have no science than WRONG "science". You better do a little more digging as to who is signing on and agreeing with. Most of those countries are giving lip service and doing absolutley NOTHING for which they proclaim in their alleged grandiose statements. Like I said in my post earlier, you will change no one's mind posting a continuous stream of excrement. It's just more chicken little propaganda. But, hey, it's a free country so worship at the alter of your choice.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you on AGW topix? Write up your peer-reviewed science paper & have it published in Science Journals. Got your Calculus of two or more variables ready? Go for it. Talk the AGW scientists down. I'm sure Singer & Soon want you on board at the NIPCC.

My question to you was, which scientific papers on solar activity do you find most compelling as the basis for your conclusion that recent solar activity has not had an impact on climate.

Your response does not answer my question, but I didn't really think I would get an answer. If you can't respond, why do you bother to comment on my posts?

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.

HA! I just noticed this in your spam postings. I thought climate was so well understood that the arguement was over about man being the cause of global warming. Why would they even want to promote more understanding if they claim the argument is already over? OH, OH, I know. It's so they can give themselves a warm fuzzy and a feel good sensation when they make statements like that. It also doesn't hurt to continue to get grant money from the gov't either.

Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began.

Solar trends and global warming
Authors:
Benestad, R. E.; Schmidt, G. A.
Affiliation:
AA(Climate Division, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway); AB(NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA)
Publication:
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, CiteID D14101 (JGRD Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/2009
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
Global Change: Solar variability (7537), Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513), Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928), Global Change: Instruments and techniques, Mathematical Geophysics: Time series analysis (1872, 4277, 4475)
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2009: American Geophysical Union
DOI:
10.1029/2008JD011639
Bibliographic Code:
2009JGRD..11414101B

Abstract
We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported.

Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414...

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Bolivia: Lake Titicaca at dangerously low levels

Evaporation blamed on global warming has reduced Lake Titicaca, one of the world's highest navigable lakes, to its lowest level since 1949, authorities said Thursday.

Diminished rainfall and a rise in solar radiation have in the past four years led to critically low water levels that now threaten fish spawning areas and plant life, the Lake Titicaca Authority said in a statement.

Titicaca's waters have dropped 81 centimeters (2.65 feet) since April and flora and fauna are apt to suffer damage if they drop another 30 centimeters (one foot), the statement said.

Navy Capt. Jorge Ernesto Espinoza told ATB television that South America's largest lake is receding by 2 to 3 centimeters (about an inch) a week.

The lake, straddling Bolivia and Peru at 3,800 meters (12,493 feet) elevation, is an 8,400 square kilometer (3,240 square mile) oasis on an arid high plain an hour's drive from the Bolivian capital, La Paz.

The lake is fed by rainfall and melt water from glaciers, which scientists say are shrinking rapidly due to global warming and could disappear altogether by mid-century.

About 2.6 million people depend on the lake for their sustenance.

The Titicaca Authority says 95 percent of the lake's inflow is now evaporating.

One reason is that the area's rainy season has been reduced from six to three months, said Felix Trujillo, chief of Bolivia's National Meterological and Hydrological Service.

He said this year's rainy season is expected to begin in mid-November.

The drought has prompted water rationing in some Bolivian cities.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

fishaholic wrote:

<quoted text>
HA! I just noticed this in your spam postings. I thought climate was so well understood that the arguement was over about man being the cause of global warming. Why would they even want to promote more understanding if they claim the argument is already over?

LMAO, Unfortunately the educated will always have to promote and share their knowledge with the less intelligent of society. Only 9.4% of the US citizens 25 and older hold a graduate or professional degree according to the U. S. Census.

Fishaholic although the concept of man contributing to global warming may be to much for you to understand thankfully their are those with higher intellect who are qualified to deal with this issue.

A report, written by a panel of senior scientists from around the world, says that the proof of climate change is 'unequivocal'
The report’s key conclusions are:

•Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level.
•It is 'very likely' that increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the rise in globally averaged temperatures since the middle of the 20th century. It is 'extremely unlikely' that this warming was due to natural climate variability alone.
•During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76 °C on average, and the rate of warming has further increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1 300 years. Europe has warmed by about 1 °C over the past 100 years, faster than the global average.
•The best estimates for projected global warming this century of a further rise in the global average temperature range from 1.8 to 4.0 °C by 2100 for different scenarios which do not assume that more action is taken to limit emissions. The full uncertainty range for the projected temperature increase this century is 1.1–6.4 °C.
•Rates of observed sea level rise almost doubled from 18 centimetres per century in 1961–2003 to 31 cm per century in 1993–2003.
•The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase due to man-made emissions, and the rate of increase has further accelerated. Current concentrations of CO2 and methane are the highest for at least 650 000 years.
•Extreme weather events have increased and regional climate patterns are changing. Heat waves and other weather extremes, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, storm tracks and precipitation, can now be traced back to climate change caused by human activities.
•Scientists have improved their ability to predict future climate change. Confidence in regional climate change projections has increased due to better models and more powerful computers. The temperature over land and at high northern latitudes will be higher than the global average. In the Arctic it could be on average 6 °C – and possibly as much as 8 °C — warmer by the end of this century than at the end of the 20th.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO, Unfortunately the educated will always have to promote and share their knowledge with the less intelligent of society. Only 9.4% of the US citizens 25 and older hold a graduate or professional degree according to the U. S. Census.
Fishaholic although the concept of man contributing to global warming may be to much for you to understand thankfully their are those with higher intellect who are qualified to deal with this issue.
A report, written by a panel of senior scientists from around the world, says that the proof of climate change is 'unequivocal'

(edited to save everyone's mouse wheel)

"A report, written by a panel of senior scientists from around the world..."

Wowee! Would you look at that! Another unreferenced source.

Gee, despite repeated admonishments, HoG can't cut/paste in an reference source.

no source = spam.

(... but aren't you all thankful, I saved your mouse wheel a workout?)

Hand of God wrote:

Invest in nature now, save trillions...

Used to be, a bird feeder costs a couple bucks. This US dollar devaluation has to stop.

Hand of God wrote:

...list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements...

Those are all political organizations, people who make their living from government “solutions” to self proclaimed crisis.

Hand of God wrote:

Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's...

Then you aren’t very good at measuring trends, sometimes the trend is, stay about the same.

No time to waste on climate change, report declares
Less than a month before the Copenhagen summit on climate change, the International Energy Agency says that governments must act now to avoid catastrophic results

Governments must act now to ward off catastrophic climate change or face additional costs of $500 billion per year of delay, according to a report released Tuesday by the International Energy Agency.

"Saving the planet cannot wait," said the report by the 28-nation intergovernmental organization. "For every year that passes, the window for action on emissions ... becomes narrower, and the costs of transforming the energy sector increase."

Officials from around the globe will meet Dec. 7-18 in Copenhagen to try to formulate a new international agreement on reining in climate change. But some fear that summit participants will not reach an accord, pushing final action into next year.

"A slow start means a crash finish in the race to combat climate change," said Daniel Lashof, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's Climate Center. "If Copenhagen results in an interim agreement and a schedule to complete the details later ... the key will be to make sure it builds momentum and ... that countries are continuing to make the investments needed."

The new treaty would succeed the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate-change agreement that expires in 2012.