Register to Comment
Page 1191 of 6589 FirstFirst ... 1916911091114111811189119011911192119312011241129116912191 ... LastLast
Results 11,901 to 11,910 of 65890
Like Tree13950Likes
  1. #11901
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by andrejsv View Post
    Even if this particular one is not true, is things like this the reason independent review is needed (that does not mean peer review byt the same clique of people), transparency and accessibility of the codes and data are needed. Sceptics are needed. What an embarrassment, if true. Well, if its a bug, good thing they caught it. say No! to orthodoxy no! to complacency, follow the scientific method and the royal society's motto "take nobody's word for it".

    Does anyone know the specific models or codes affected?
    Who should do the peer review if not other scientists on the field? Politicians? Economists? Weathermen? That would be the end of science.

    => Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by andrejsv View Post
    Do you want to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? then plant some trees, beautify urban areas with parks, put little hanging gardens and flower beds in buildings, support the modern logging industry where forests are regrown, and most important, stop the deforestation of the amazon. Now those are 'green' efforts I could get fully behind, because.. yes, CO2 is plant food.
    First part of your post is a good approach for the problem of too much CO2 in our atmospkere. But it still wouldn't combat the rise of other greenhouse gases, such as the many (20-80) times more potent methane (CH4) which is due to rising gas exploration.

    Concerning "plant food", watch this:

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #11902
    Tombo Tombo is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    7,251

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    Scientists predict US$2trn cost to ocean economies
    Next
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #11903
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    I managed insurance companies, tommy. So don't try your silliness with me. I know how to assess risk and I know when risk passes the capacity of the insurance market to cope with it.

    That level is not far off with climate matters.
    Makes sense

    Increased Profit is Not a Solution For Climate Change

    Insurance company involvement in climate research is not new. Swiss Re one of the largest insurance companies in the world has long sponsored climate research as their web page proclaims, “As a leading global reinsurer we actively research, model and reinsure natural catastrophe risks from floods through winter-storms to hurricanes. We have therefore followed the development of climate change for over 20 years and participated in, or sponsored, 100’s (sic) of events and projects ranging from research and awareness building to product development and managing our own carbon footprint.”

    They were a founding sponsor of Climate Week NYC this year attended by those great climate experts former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

    Their presence and the error-filled address by President Obama reflect the concern that the public is not buying their climate story and Copenhagen will fail. Swiss Re’s comment that “Climate Week NY°C is an important step for us on the “Road to Copenhagen” where policy makers will make important decisions on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation funding including the use of risk- transfer mechanisms” takes lobbying to a new level.

    Swiss Re increased activity in climate research after hurricane Andrew.

    A major misdirection was created when increased cost for hurricane insurance claims was incorrectly used to say hurricane frequency had increased. Zurich and Swiss Re both promote the false science of the IPCC without questioning its validity because it benefits them. Is it good business? Yes. Is it moral, scientifically accurate and good for society? No. It is pure, unadulterated, hypocritical, exploitation. Would they sponsor research that showed climate variations were quite normal and risk levels were not elevated? Of course not, any more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entertains climate skeptics.

    Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments.
    Climate Science: Funding Hypocrisy: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #11904
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Tim Ball who believes that climate change and global warming would be good for us. This neoliberal is complaining about the funding of the IPCC. Meanwhile his own "think tank", the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, is funded by big oil and other corporations...

    An opinion piece without real research. Not worth reading that rubbish.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #11905
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Back to real science. The Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research:

    Weather records due to climate change: a game with loaded dice

    03/25/2012 - The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

    ...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #11906
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,330

    Quote Originally Posted by andrejsv View Post
    Even if this particular one is not true, is things like this the reason independent review is needed (that does not mean peer review byt the same clique of people), transparency and accessibility of the codes and data are needed. Sceptics are needed. What an embarrassment, if true. Well, if its a bug, good thing they caught it. say No! to orthodoxy no! to complacency, follow the scientific method and the royal society's motto "take nobody's word for it".

    Does anyone know the specific models or codes affected?
    April Fool!

    Jeez, andrejsv, I thought it was so obvious, no one would fall for it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #11907
    Volatire Volatire is offline
    Volatire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    10,365

    Anyone know how bad things could get? What's the worst case scenario in say the next 50-100 years?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #11908
    andrejsv andrejsv is offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    490

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatire View Post
    Anyone know how bad things could get? What's the worst case scenario in say the next 50-100 years?
    The current predictions for cycle 24 smoothed maximum number of sunspots is 59 in 2013 makig it the smallest in 100 years:
    NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
    And for the next cycle, clycle 25 is even worse, a maximum of 7 to 20 around 2030 depending who makes the prediction
    Sun to skip solar cycle 25?
    Forecasting Cycle 25–Livingston and Penn Method | Climate Change Sanity

    For reasons currently unknown there is a correlation between low temperatures and low sunspot numbers, so we are headed for a period of declining temperatures reminiscent of the little ice age. Based on a crude correlation between the time interval between solar maximums (the smaller the sunspot number the longer the period, the longer the period the colder it gets) it could be as bad as a drop of 2 degrees C. (the Thames freezing again regularly)

    Now the global warming crowd is confident that the effect will be minimized, perhaps there will be no cooling at all due to the effects of increased CO2, who knows? Lets hope so. Perhaps warming will recommence after 2030, again who knows.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #11909
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,330

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatire View Post
    Anyone know how bad things could get? What's the worst case scenario in say the next 50-100 years?
    Well, here's a temperature projection that was made in 1981.



    And how are we doing? Not good - the 1981 projection by James Hansen et al was an underestimate.



    If nothing else, this should bring home the failure to limit world fossil fuel emissions.

    .... a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

    References
    1. J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966.
    RealClimate: Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

    2b is about the best we can hope for in these scenarios - coal phaseout beginning 2020 will keep up below 2C, which is the absolute max allowable for a rise from pre-industrial levels that would cause only relatively minor disruption. Otherwise, there will be sea level rise, extreme weather and drought. Especially this last one will cause enormous disruption to the planet's food supply, where the rising world's population is particularly vulnerable.

    The most vulnerable people are the world's poorest nations lying closest to the equator.

    Dan Miller's presentation on FORA TV is one of the best:

    FORA.tv - Dan Miller: Boom or Bust?
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 4th April 2012 at 08:23 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #11910
    Volatire Volatire is offline
    Volatire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    10,365

    OK so 4 C global temperature rise is the worst case scenario?

    What kinds of effects would that have? Mass extinctions? Famine?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment