New global warming study shows no warming last 14 years

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 79ford

You dont need to tax to reduce consumption.... Legislation like the clean air act, tier3 and 4 emmissions standards and CAFE standards have raised efficiency by a huge margin as well as brought breathable air to cities.

In 1960 there used to be about 7 barrels of oil for every human on this planet.... now we have about 4.3 barrels of oil for every human on this planet.

Assuming everyone is going towards modernization we will have to figure out how to do it with 40% less oil as there is about 40% less oil per capita these days.

Google China air pollution.... Then you will see why we should be very thankfull for increased iefficiency and cleaner combustion legislation

Regulations to remove sulphur dioxide and particulates is a great initiative. Removing CO2 a waste of money and time.

The only way to stop people using oil and gas and electricity as much is to both legislate as much efficiency as possible and also tax the heck out of energy so you are forced to chose the more efficient alternative and help pay for the efficiencies.

I would challenge you to think about your energy consumption. Electricity is a very inefficient transfer of fossil fuel energy to electricity. You can and should pay the premium to have only non fossil fuel energy dedicated to your home. It will cost you more...likely won't do it but it is your alternative choice.

Also if you look at all your residual energy use. Canada could save 30% on our electricity consumption just by eliminating residual energy use. Lights left on. PVR's running power. TV's running power. Washing and drying machines still drawing power 24/7. Microwaves. Alarm clocks. Tons of wasted power. That should be the first target.

China's pollution is increasing daily far faster than Canada can reverse ours and it pales in comparison anyways. But you say we need to pay more to cut back on oil use.

Somehow I do think you truly believe that one sweep of Harper's pen and cars are twice as efficient.

We are in a market driven economy. If a car maker can build a car that takes half the gasoline and still provide the same power, speed, distance etc. don't you think they would burst into the market and kick all the competitors butts?

You have a utopian ideal of power consumption. You feel we can legislate more efficiency and still not impact cost.

You realize that making industry more real pollution sensitive did cost a lot of money and did raise prices. For me...reducing that real pollution like sulphur dioxide made sense to pay for and take the economic hit.

CO2...facts are just not showing the connection.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eputation.html

Climate scientists insist global warming hasn't stopped, it's just on a break as they prepare to release report designed to salvage their reputation

Climate change is on a 'hiatus' and likely to return with more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels
Temperatures have not continued to rise since 1998
Sceptics say climate change is not man-made and question urgent action
But IPCC report concludes global warming is '95 per cent' result of humans
The IPCC report in 2007 erroneously claimed Himalayas would melt by 2035

By Shari Miller

PUBLISHED: 15:35 GMT, 22 September 2013 | UPDATED: 16:43 GMT, 22 September 2013

Global warming has not stopped - it's just on a 'hiatus' and likely to return with ever more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels - according to a draft report from leading scientists.

The 127-page United Nations report, and a shorter summary for policymakers due for release in Stockholm on September 27, suggests a slowdown in Earth's rising temperature can be explained by volcanic ash and a cyclical dip in energy emitted from the sun.

While likely to attract opposition from sceptics - who say climate change is not man-made - the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is likely to stand by the bold claims as the body attempts to salvage its reputation following the publication of its last report in 2007.

In that report, scientists erroneously claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035.
Meltdown: Climate scientists say despite a slowing of temperatures, global warming is still likely to return and continue having a negative effect on the world's polar ice caps

Meltdown: Climate scientists say despite a slowing of temperatures, global warming is still likely to return and continue having a negative effect on the world's polar ice caps

Now six years on, the IPCC must convincingly explain why temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years despite rising emissions of greenhouse gases - something that has emboldened sceptics who question the need for urgent action.

The IPCC is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it.

Governments around the world, including Britain, largely base their green policies on the report.

Just on Friday, France called for bolder EU cuts in greenhouse gases and said it would halve its own energy consumption by 2050.


More...

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Global warming will end life on earth (but don't panic, you've got 3.5bn years left!)

While the IPCC draft report acknowledges the slow rise in temperature, scientists predict this is simply a 'common break' in global warming - and it will resume once more.

'Barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year global mean surface temperature trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998 to 2012,' reports the Technical Summary, dated June 7.

Temperatures are likely be 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius (0.5-1.3 Fahrenheit) higher from 2016-35 than from 1986-2005, it adds.
Heating up: The report suggests that Earth's temperatures in the future are likely to be higher than in previous decades

Heating up: The report suggests that Earth's temperatures in the future are likely to be higher than in previous decades

The reports by the IPCC, updating an overview of climate change from 2001, are the main guide for government action.

'Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common' in both historical records and in computer models.

But scientists were caught out - in one computer model, 111 of 114 estimates over-stated recent temperature rises.

The drafts predict that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8C (8.5F) this century - far above a ceiling set by governments of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times to avoid dangerous changes to nature and society.

However, the report suggests that with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the rise could be kept to just 0.3C (0.5F), the draft says.

Many experts agree that natural variations in the weather, caused by factors such as shifts in ocean currents or winds, can mask a warming trend even with a continued build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The hiatus 'is not a sign that the warming trend has gone,' said Guy Brasseur, director of the Climate Service Center in Germany.

He said the climate was comparable to Wall Street - there were often long-term trends with unpredictable daily swings.

Brasseur and other experts contacted were stating their own views, not referring to details of the coming report.

'There are a number of explanations (for the hiatus), any one of which might be correct,' said professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, who contributed to the IPCC draft.

'That is very different from saying: 'We have no idea what's going on'.'
Still frozen: A 2007 IPCC report erroneously suggested that the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Still frozen: A 2007 IPCC report erroneously suggested that the Himalayas would melt by 2035

The drafts say that a reduction in warming for 1998 to 2012 compared to 1951 to 2012 is 'due in roughly equal measure' to natural variations in the climate and factors such as 'volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle.'

Volcanoes spew ash into the air that can dim sunlight and so cool the surface of the planet.

The sun was in a downward cycle of output - meaning that it was emitting less energy - during most of the period.

The technical summary says that warming from 1998 to 2012 slowed to 0.05 degree C (0.09F) per decade, against 0.12 (0.2F) per decade from 1951-2012.

But the decade to 2012 was the warmest since records began in the mid-19th Century.

It says another factor could be that computer models consistently over-estimate warming.

Some experts argued that near-term projections of temperature rises should be cut by 10 percent, it said.

Other theories include that more heat is going into the oceans or that air pollution is dimming sunlight.

An academic report last month said a cooling of the Pacific Ocean, linked to natural La Nina events that bring cooler waters to the surface, was the main explanation.

The IPCC draft also says the planet may be somewhat less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the air.

A doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from pre-industrial times is likely to mean an eventual temperature rise of between 1.5 and 4.5 C (2.7-8.1F), down from 2.0 to 4.5 (3.6-8.1F) estimated in 2007, the report adds.


IPCC REPORTS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS BECOMING THE HOT TOPIC

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a report in Stockholm on September 27 to guide governments in tackling global warming.

Drafts show that it will raise the probability that global warming is man-made to at least 95 percent - up from 90 per cent in its previous assessment in 2007.

WHAT IS THE IPCC?

It was set up by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information from all over the world about climate change.

The IPCC does not conduct any research itself or collect or monitor climate data, but thousands of scientists contribute on a voluntary basis.

Currently, 195 governments participate in the review process of IPCC reports and in its plenary sessions, where the main decisions about the IPCC's work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved.

The IPCC is chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, of India. The IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Al Gore in 2007.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up by the United Nations, which is headquartered in New York (pictured) in 1988

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up by the United Nations, which is headquartered in New York (pictured) in 1988

WHAT IS AR5?

The IPCC has published four assessment reports since 1990. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will be released in stages in 2013 and 2014.

AR5 is composed of three working group reports and a synthesis report. The first working group report assesses the physical science basis for climate change and will be released on September 27 in Stockholm.

The second will be about climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and released on March 29 next year in Japan.

The third report will focus on ways to solve the problem and be released on April 11 in Germany.

The synthesis report is based on material from the three working group reports and will be released on October 14, 2014 in Copenhagen.

More than 830 authors are involved in writing the reports.

A FORCE FOR CHANGE

Previous IPCC reports have sometimes spurred action at UN climate talks with ever stronger warnings that greenhouse gases will cause more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising seas.

A 1995 IPCC report that concluded it was more than 50 percent likely mankind was to blame for climate change contributed to the negotiations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for cutting emissions by developed nations.

The 2007 report spurred two years of negotiations that led to a summit in Copenhagen where world leaders failed to clinch a global deal. Governments agreed two years ago to have another try, giving themselves until 2015.

The IPCC faces extra scrutiny this year after errors were found in the 2007 report, which exaggerated the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

A review by outside experts found that the main conclusions were unaffected.

The IPCC subsequently set up a more rigorous and formal process for dealing with errors.

[79ford]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Regulations to remove sulphur dioxide and particulates is a great initiative. Removing CO2 a waste of money and time.

The only way to stop people using oil and gas and electricity as much is to both legislate as much efficiency as possible and also tax the heck out of energy so you are forced to chose the more efficient alternative and help pay for the efficiencies.

I would challenge you to think about your energy consumption. Electricity is a very inefficient transfer of fossil fuel energy to electricity. You can and should pay the premium to have only non fossil fuel energy dedicated to your home. It will cost you more...likely won't do it but it is your alternative choice.

Also if you look at all your residual energy use. Canada could save 30% on our electricity consumption just by eliminating residual energy use. Lights left on. PVR's running power. TV's running power. Washing and drying machines still drawing power 24/7. Microwaves. Alarm clocks. Tons of wasted power. That should be the first target.

China's pollution is increasing daily far faster than Canada can reverse ours and it pales in comparison anyways. But you say we need to pay more to cut back on oil use.

Somehow I do think you truly believe that one sweep of Harper's pen and cars are twice as efficient.

We are in a market driven economy. If a car maker can build a car that takes half the gasoline and still provide the same power, speed, distance etc. don't you think they would burst into the market and kick all the competitors butts?

You have a utopian ideal of power consumption. You feel we can legislate more efficiency and still not impact cost.

You realize that making industry more real pollution sensitive did cost a lot of money and did raise prices. For me...reducing that real pollution like sulphur dioxide made sense to pay for and take the economic hit.

CO2...facts are just not showing the connection.

The technology is there....The introduction of stiffer Corporate average fuel efficiency standards increased efficiency in the 70's and will do so again with the latest change in CAFE standards in the united states.

I went from a mid seventies ford as a daily driver to a newer smaller truck... reduced fuel burnt by 60%. Thats going from a truck to a truck, not like I had to buy a prius.haha

The company I work for is one of those old school nasty industries everyone loves to hate.... most new sources of profit have come from inccreased efficiency and creating less waste while using less water. Makes millions more dollars for us every year.

Most of emmissions reductions would be a by-product of common sense if application of strategies used in heavy industtry were applied to the consumer world.


Whether you are an industrial user or private consumer.... more efficiency means more money in your pocket.

If you drive to town in your f150 for 20$ to get 100$ worth of groceries your operation would be 10% more efficient to drive a small suv for 10$ and operating costs would be cut by 50% plus you would still have 4 wheel drive....

You are essentially argueing against creating value for money while saving money.

Global warming or not I really dont care, it is dumb to waste money or energy

[79ford]

legislation usually comes about because people are too dumb to legislate themselves. Most laws are enforcement of common sense to the prudent and conciencious individual.

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by 79ford

If you drive to town in your f150 for 20$ to get 100$ worth of groceries your operation would be 10% more efficient to drive a small suv for 10$ and operating costs would be cut by 50% plus you would still have 4 wheel drive....

Yup the technology is getting there.
I drive my 2012 F-150 more than my 2005 small SUV (Mazda Tribute with 3 litre engine) because the F-150 is significantly more economical to drive, and more comfortable too

Here's a link to another interesting story on climate change: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...ars-ago/13213/

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 79ford

The technology is there....The introduction of stiffer Corporate average fuel efficiency standards increased efficiency in the 70's and will do so again with the latest change in CAFE standards in the united states.

I went from a mid seventies ford as a daily driver to a newer smaller truck... reduced fuel burnt by 60%. Thats going from a truck to a truck, not like I had to buy a prius.haha

The company I work for is one of those old school nasty industries everyone loves to hate.... most new sources of profit have come from inccreased efficiency and creating less waste while using less water. Makes millions more dollars for us every year.

Most of emmissions reductions would be a by-product of common sense if application of strategies used in heavy industtry were applied to the consumer world.


Whether you are an industrial user or private consumer.... more efficiency means more money in your pocket.

If you drive to town in your f150 for 20$ to get 100$ worth of groceries your operation would be 10% more efficient to drive a small suv for 10$ and operating costs would be cut by 50% plus you would still have 4 wheel drive....

You are essentially argueing against creating value for money while saving money.

Global warming or not I really dont care, it is dumb to waste money or energy

You have a pleasant ideal of the market place.

Yes... Forced legislation can move the dial and price can move it much faster.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelin...all-time-high/

People freaked out when oil shot up. People with motor homes were selling them cheap. Sales in bigger less fuel efficient vehicles plummeted.

Still I am amazed at some friends that strongly believe in global warming yet own SUV's and trucks.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 79ford

legislation usually comes about because people are too dumb to legislate themselves. Most laws are enforcement of common sense to the prudent and conciencious individual.

Why not just legislate what size of vehicle you are allowed to own. You need a strong reason to own an SUV, minivan or truck. Recreational need is not acceptable. You can always rent a bigger vehicle to go fishing or hunting etc.

Doing that could save a ton of oil. Also banning airfare or having a legislated lottery giving you a chance to fly would save a lot also. Legislating home and business thermostats to 69 Fahrenheit would save tons... You could even legislate the color of sweater you can wear.

[79ford]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Why not just legislate what size of vehicle you are allowed to own. You need a strong reason to own an SUV, minivan or truck. Recreational need is not acceptable. You can always rent a bigger vehicle to go fishing or hunting etc.

Doing that could save a ton of oil. Also banning airfare or having a legislated lottery giving you a chance to fly would save a lot also. Legislating home and business thermostats to 69 Fahrenheit would save tons... You could even legislate the color of sweater you can wear.

Hmmm, you legislate the types of products... like furnaces with more efficient exchangers, vehicles with better mileage. Consumer buys them and uses less energy even if they have no clue how to use a furnace or vehicle.


What I am saying is why let things get to the poi t where the government decides to step in? If people (consumers) (main source of pollution) started going towards smarter ideas themselves industry will follow their dollars.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eputation.html

Climate scientists insist global warming hasn't stopped, it's just on a break as they prepare to release report designed to salvage their reputation

Climate change is on a 'hiatus' and likely to return with more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels
Temperatures have not continued to rise since 1998
Sceptics say climate change is not man-made and question urgent action
But IPCC report concludes global warming is '95 per cent' result of humans
The IPCC report in 2007 erroneously claimed Himalayas would melt by 2035

By Shari Miller

PUBLISHED: 15:35 GMT, 22 September 2013 | UPDATED: 16:43 GMT, 22 September 2013

Global warming has not stopped - it's just on a 'hiatus' and likely to return with ever more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels - according to a draft report from leading scientists.

The 127-page United Nations report, and a shorter summary for policymakers due for release in Stockholm on September 27, suggests a slowdown in Earth's rising temperature can be explained by volcanic ash and a cyclical dip in energy emitted from the sun.

While likely to attract opposition from sceptics - who say climate change is not man-made - the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is likely to stand by the bold claims as the body attempts to salvage its reputation following the publication of its last report in 2007.

In that report, scientists erroneously claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035.
Meltdown: Climate scientists say despite a slowing of temperatures, global warming is still likely to return and continue having a negative effect on the world's polar ice caps

Meltdown: Climate scientists say despite a slowing of temperatures, global warming is still likely to return and continue having a negative effect on the world's polar ice caps

Now six years on, the IPCC must convincingly explain why temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years despite rising emissions of greenhouse gases - something that has emboldened sceptics who question the need for urgent action.

The IPCC is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it.

Governments around the world, including Britain, largely base their green policies on the report.

Just on Friday, France called for bolder EU cuts in greenhouse gases and said it would halve its own energy consumption by 2050.


More...

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Global warming will end life on earth (but don't panic, you've got 3.5bn years left!)

While the IPCC draft report acknowledges the slow rise in temperature, scientists predict this is simply a 'common break' in global warming - and it will resume once more.

'Barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year global mean surface temperature trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998 to 2012,' reports the Technical Summary, dated June 7.

Temperatures are likely be 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius (0.5-1.3 Fahrenheit) higher from 2016-35 than from 1986-2005, it adds.
Heating up: The report suggests that Earth's temperatures in the future are likely to be higher than in previous decades

Heating up: The report suggests that Earth's temperatures in the future are likely to be higher than in previous decades

The reports by the IPCC, updating an overview of climate change from 2001, are the main guide for government action.

'Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common' in both historical records and in computer models.

But scientists were caught out - in one computer model, 111 of 114 estimates over-stated recent temperature rises.

The drafts predict that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8C (8.5F) this century - far above a ceiling set by governments of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times to avoid dangerous changes to nature and society.

However, the report suggests that with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the rise could be kept to just 0.3C (0.5F), the draft says.

Many experts agree that natural variations in the weather, caused by factors such as shifts in ocean currents or winds, can mask a warming trend even with a continued build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The hiatus 'is not a sign that the warming trend has gone,' said Guy Brasseur, director of the Climate Service Center in Germany.

He said the climate was comparable to Wall Street - there were often long-term trends with unpredictable daily swings.

Brasseur and other experts contacted were stating their own views, not referring to details of the coming report.

'There are a number of explanations (for the hiatus), any one of which might be correct,' said professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, who contributed to the IPCC draft.

'That is very different from saying: 'We have no idea what's going on'.'
Still frozen: A 2007 IPCC report erroneously suggested that the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Still frozen: A 2007 IPCC report erroneously suggested that the Himalayas would melt by 2035

The drafts say that a reduction in warming for 1998 to 2012 compared to 1951 to 2012 is 'due in roughly equal measure' to natural variations in the climate and factors such as 'volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle.'

Volcanoes spew ash into the air that can dim sunlight and so cool the surface of the planet.

The sun was in a downward cycle of output - meaning that it was emitting less energy - during most of the period.

The technical summary says that warming from 1998 to 2012 slowed to 0.05 degree C (0.09F) per decade, against 0.12 (0.2F) per decade from 1951-2012.

But the decade to 2012 was the warmest since records began in the mid-19th Century.

It says another factor could be that computer models consistently over-estimate warming.

Some experts argued that near-term projections of temperature rises should be cut by 10 percent, it said.

Other theories include that more heat is going into the oceans or that air pollution is dimming sunlight.

An academic report last month said a cooling of the Pacific Ocean, linked to natural La Nina events that bring cooler waters to the surface, was the main explanation.

The IPCC draft also says the planet may be somewhat less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the air.

A doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from pre-industrial times is likely to mean an eventual temperature rise of between 1.5 and 4.5 C (2.7-8.1F), down from 2.0 to 4.5 (3.6-8.1F) estimated in 2007, the report adds.


IPCC REPORTS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS BECOMING THE HOT TOPIC

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a report in Stockholm on September 27 to guide governments in tackling global warming.

Drafts show that it will raise the probability that global warming is man-made to at least 95 percent - up from 90 per cent in its previous assessment in 2007.

WHAT IS THE IPCC?

It was set up by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information from all over the world about climate change.

The IPCC does not conduct any research itself or collect or monitor climate data, but thousands of scientists contribute on a voluntary basis.

Currently, 195 governments participate in the review process of IPCC reports and in its plenary sessions, where the main decisions about the IPCC's work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved.

The IPCC is chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, of India. The IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Al Gore in 2007.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up by the United Nations, which is headquartered in New York (pictured) in 1988

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up by the United Nations, which is headquartered in New York (pictured) in 1988

WHAT IS AR5?

The IPCC has published four assessment reports since 1990. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will be released in stages in 2013 and 2014.

AR5 is composed of three working group reports and a synthesis report. The first working group report assesses the physical science basis for climate change and will be released on September 27 in Stockholm.

The second will be about climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and released on March 29 next year in Japan.

The third report will focus on ways to solve the problem and be released on April 11 in Germany.

The synthesis report is based on material from the three working group reports and will be released on October 14, 2014 in Copenhagen.

More than 830 authors are involved in writing the reports.

A FORCE FOR CHANGE

Previous IPCC reports have sometimes spurred action at UN climate talks with ever stronger warnings that greenhouse gases will cause more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising seas.

A 1995 IPCC report that concluded it was more than 50 percent likely mankind was to blame for climate change contributed to the negotiations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for cutting emissions by developed nations.

The 2007 report spurred two years of negotiations that led to a summit in Copenhagen where world leaders failed to clinch a global deal. Governments agreed two years ago to have another try, giving themselves until 2015.

The IPCC faces extra scrutiny this year after errors were found in the 2007 report, which exaggerated the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

A review by outside experts found that the main conclusions were unaffected.

The IPCC subsequently set up a more rigorous and formal process for dealing with errors.

In a nut shell, "Stuff happens".

[roadkill]

http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

Silly title and his presentation is a little, uh... Well, I think he's a teacher, so it might be skewed a little young, but the logic is compelling. Also, it's from 2007. The biggest diff between then and now is that the naysayers seem to be a lot fewer today than they were back then.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 79ford

Hmmm, you legislate the types of products... like furnaces with more efficient exchangers, vehicles with better mileage. Consumer buys them and uses less energy even if they have no clue how to use a furnace or vehicle.


What I am saying is why let things get to the poi t where the government decides to step in? If people (consumers) (main source of pollution) started going towards smarter ideas themselves industry will follow their dollars.

Ahhh. But since CO2 is not worth spending zillions on then how about put out research incentives versus increasing costs unnecessarily. Stopping SO2 great. Stopping CO2 a waste of money.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by roadkill

http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

Silly title and his presentation is a little, uh... Well, I think he's a teacher, so it might be skewed a little young, but the logic is compelling. Also, it's from 2007. The biggest diff between then and now is that the naysayers seem to be a lot fewer today than they were back then.

It is a classic example of fear mongering meant to make a decision for you out of fear versus logic and all centred around the concept of a lottery ticket. Gambling.

He also missed the yes/yes having a massive global recession. Such a recession kills millions due to famine, disease etc.

I love his worse case scenario examples. Made up what ifs that are an order of magnitude more exaggerated than even the IPCC puts out.

So here is a similar exercise


I say that a world wide pandemic is coming and will kill your kids. I can model how it spreads. I can model where it will come from. I can model the likely type...with far greater accuracy than weather due to fewer unknown variables.

So my model shows it will likely happen in the next 1 - 200 years unless we stop all international travel and movement of goods.

The same grid system falls as follows

Yes we stop travel and commerce and the world goes into a recession. Turns out a pandemic would never happen.

Yes we stop travel and commerce and the world goes into a recession and while some people starved to death people did not die in a pandemic.

No we don't stop travel and commerce the world is safe and no one starves

No we don't stop travel and commerce and 30% of the world dies


WOW. It just makes sense now. Clearly even though the science is unclear we should stop all human international travel and commerce. It just makes so much common sense.

Do you see the concern with this guy. His argument is emotional versus logical. Spock would laugh this guy out of the Academy.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...0,791164.story



Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot

By Monte Morin

September 22, 2013, 9:14 p.m.

It's a climate puzzle that has vexed scientists for more than a decade and added fuel to the arguments of those who insist man-made global warming is a myth.

Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth's average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.

Now, as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gather in Sweden this week to approve portions of the IPCC's fifth assessment report, they are finding themselves pressured to explain this glaring discrepancy.

The panel, a United Nations creation that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, hopes to brief world leaders on the current state of climate science in a clear, unified voice. However, experts inside and outside the process say members probably will engage in heated debate over the causes and significance of the so-called global warming hiatus.

"It's contentious," said IPCC panelist Shang-Ping Xie, a professor of climate science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. "The stakes have been raised by various people, especially the skeptics."

Though scientists don't have any firm answers, they do have multiple theories. Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.

The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn't enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.

Scientists have also offered other explanations for the hiatus: lack of sunspot activity, low concentrations of atmospheric water vapor and other marine-related effects. These too remain theories.

For the general public, the existence of the hiatus has been difficult to reconcile with reports of record-breaking summer heat and precedent-setting Arctic ice melts.

At the same time, those who deny the tenets of climate change science — that the burning of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and warms it — have seized on the hiatus, calling it proof that global warming isn't real.

Climate scientists, meanwhile, have had a different response. Although most view the pause as a temporary interruption in a long-term warming trend, some disagree and say it has revealed serious flaws in the deliberative processes of the IPCC.

One of the most prominent of these critics is Judith Curry, a climatologist who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She was involved in the third IPCC assessment, which was published in 2001. But now she accuses the organization of intellectual arrogance and bias.

"All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet," Curry said. "However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact."

Curry isn't the only one to suggest flaws in established climate models. IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month's Nature Climate Change that said climate models had "significantly" overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.

The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero.

Of course, people don't actually spend their entire lives subjected to the global average temperature, which is currently about 15 degrees Celsius, or 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Those who fixate on that single measurement lose sight of significant regional trends, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, climate scientists say.

Xie and Yu Kosaka, an assistant project scientist at Scripps, used computer models to simulate the Pacific decadal oscillation, a phenomenon related to the El Niño and La Niña ocean temperature cycles that lasts for 20 to 30 years. The model suggested that the northern mid-latitudes — an area that includes the United States and most of Europe and China — were "insulated" from the oscillation's cooling effect during the summer months, as was the Arctic region.

"In the summer you've basically removed the Pacific cooling, so we're still baked by greenhouse gases," Xie said.

As a consequence, 2012 marked two climate milestones, he said. The U.S. experienced its hottest year on record, while ice cover in the North Pole shrank to the lowest level ever observed by satellite.

Other climatologists, such as Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, say sea level rise is "unequivocal proof" that greenhouse gases are continuing to heat the planet, and that much of this added heat is being absorbed by the oceans.

As ocean water warms, it expands and drives sea levels higher, Patzert said. Currently, oceans are rising at an average of more than 3 millimeters, or 0.12 of an inch, per year. This pace is significantly faster than the average rate over the last several thousand years, scientists say.

"There's no doubt that in terms of global temperatures we've hit a little flat spot in the road here," Patzert said. "But there's been no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise, so global warming is alive and well."

Whether that message is communicated successfully by the IPCC this week remains to be seen. In the days leading up to the meeting, the organization has found itself on the defensive.

A draft summary that was leaked to the media reported that scientists were "95% confident" that human activity was responsible for more than half of the increase in average global surface temperature between 1951 and 2010. But critics openly scoff, considering the IPCC's poor record for predicting short-term temperature increases.
"This unpredicted hiatus just reflects the fact that we don't understand things as well as we thought," said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder and vocal critic of the climate change establishment. "Now the IPCC finds itself in a position that a science group never wants to be in. It's in spin management mode."

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504


Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC climate report
By Matt McGrath
23 September 2013 Last updated at 04:56 ET

Environment correspondent, BBC News

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming.

Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures.

But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998.

One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a "central piece" of the summary.

Researchers from all over the world work with the IPCC to pore over thousands of peer-reviewed studies and produce a summary representing the current state of climate science.

Its previous report in 2007 was instrumental in helping the panel share the Nobel Peace Prize that year.

A new Summary for Policymakers on the physical sciences, the first of three parts that make up a report to be released over the next 12 months, will be published in Stockholm on Friday.

It will focus on the science underlying changes in temperature in the atmosphere, the oceans and at the poles.

New estimates will be given for the scale of global warming and its impact on sea levels, glaciers and ice sheets.

Levels of certainty

In its last report in 2007, the IPCC stated that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" - in other words, humans burning fossil fuels.

-The onset of the current pause coincides with a spike in upper ocean heat uptake around 2002 (lower graph)

-It may have begun when energy trapped by greenhouse gases was buried below the surface of the ocean

-However, the continuation of the pause in global surface warming beyond 2004 coincides with a decline in upper ocean heat uptake

-Understanding the cause of this decline in upper ocean heat content is crucial for explaining the continuation of the pause in surface warming

In the latest draft summary, seen by the BBC, the level of scientific certainty has increased.

The panel states that it is 95% certain that the "human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951-2010."

But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.

This slowdown, or hiatus as the IPCC refers to it, has been leapt upon by climate sceptics to argue that the scientific belief that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet, is wrong.

Scientists have attempted to explain the pause in a number of ways, with many arguing that the Earth has continued to warm but that the heat has gone into oceans.

The most recent report suggested that a periodic cooling of the Pacific ocean was counteracting the impact of the extra carbon in the atmosphere.

But there is no certainty and little agreement among scientists on the mechanisms involved.

And this week, when the scientists will go through their summary line by line with officials from 195 governments, the pause is likely to be the focus of heated debate.

Prof Arthur Petersen is the chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and part of the Dutch delegation that will review the IPCC report.

"Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor," he told BBC News.

"I expect that this will be a central piece of the summary."

There are likely to be tough negotiations between the parties throughout the week, with governments having already submitted around 1,800 comments on the draft.

Any changes to the text will need to be approved by the scientists, who will want to make sure that they are consistent with the underlying reports. This could lead to some tense moments.

"I wouldn't say there is a reluctance of the authors to take up such an issue as the pause, but they want to do it in a proper way," said Prof Petersen.

"There will remain a tension between how much you can deliver based on the peer-reviewed science and what the governments would like to have."

Too sensitive

In the draft report, the panel agrees that "the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951".

The effect of this slowdown means that the future temperature range predicted by the IPCC will be wider than in 2007, and with a lower starting point.

Many sceptical voices believe this is a recognition that the IPCC modelling process has been too sensitive to carbon dioxide, a claim given some credence by the text of the draft which states that some models have "too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing".
But Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who is a vice-chair of the IPCC, rejects this idea.

"To take that out of context, if that change is confirmed this week, and to present it as a big change in the opinion the IPCC has on climate sensitivity, is ridiculous," he said.

"Most climate scientists wouldn't say that the 15-year period is a good reason to question the overall quality of models."

There is a feeling among many scientists involved with the process that this report will be more complicated and cautious than in 2007.

In the wake of that year's report, a small number of embarrassing errors were detected in the underlying material. The organisation's reputation was also questioned in the Climategate rumpus.

"Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones," said Prof Petersen.

"The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.

"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"

[roadkill]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

It is a classic example of fear mongering meant to make a decision for you out of fear versus logic and all centred around the concept of a lottery ticket. Gambling.

He also missed the yes/yes having a massive global recession. Such a recession kills millions due to famine, disease etc.

You're right, he doesn't give a recession as an example. He calls it a straight-up depression at about 3:00. The point is that, as he says about 45 seconds or so later, if the naysayers were wrong and we do nothing, we still get the depression from the top of column A on top of the other catastrophic stuff.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I love his worse case scenario examples. Made up what ifs that are an order of magnitude more exaggerated than even the IPCC puts out.

He also acknowledges that the examples are extreme for simplicity's sake. Take the examples down a few notches and the logic is still pretty impeccable. You're arguing about the window dressing, not whether or not there's glass in the panes.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So here is a similar exercise


I say that a world wide pandemic is coming and will kill your kids. I can model how it spreads. I can model where it will come from. I can model the likely type...with far greater accuracy than weather due to fewer unknown variables.

So my model shows it will likely happen in the next 1 - 200 years unless we stop all international travel and movement of goods.

The same grid system falls as follows

Yes we stop travel and commerce and the world goes into a recession. Turns out a pandemic would never happen.

Yes we stop travel and commerce and the world goes into a recession and while some people starved to death people did not die in a pandemic.

No we don't stop travel and commerce the world is safe and no one starves

No we don't stop travel and commerce and 30% of the world dies


WOW. It just makes sense now. Clearly even though the science is unclear we should stop all human international travel and commerce. It just makes so much common sense.

Actually, world travel has done more to aid the spread of infectious diseases than anything you or I could come up with, save maybe unhygienic practises and antivaxers.

If there was no international travel, the chances of Quebec being covered in these West Nile Virus billboards would be much, much smaller.

But where you're getting this wrong is that it's a simple risk management model. He's not saying to stop buying Alberta oil, he's saying to take dramatic action. In your example, I'd say vaccinate. Live in a bubble if you have to. Okay, maybe shut down air travel in the extreme, but that's not the only -- or necessarily best -- answer. He's saying the same thing.

Hell, we could make it about seatbelts, home insurance or whether or not to buy seedless grapes if we wanted to.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you see the concern with this guy. His argument is emotional versus logical. Spock would laugh this guy out of the Academy.

No. change the examples to something completely different and run the thought experiment. It's a basic logic exersise. You have a problem with it because of the subject matter in this case.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by roadkill

You're right, he doesn't give a recession as an example. He calls it a straight-up depression at about 3:00. The point is that, as he says about 45 seconds or so later, if the naysayers were wrong and we do nothing, we still get the depression from the top of column A on top of the other catastrophic stuff.





He also acknowledges that the examples are extreme for simplicity's sake. Take the examples down a few notches and the logic is still pretty impeccable. You're arguing about the window dressing, not whether or not there's glass in the panes.



Actually, world travel has done more to aid the spread of infectious diseases than anything you or I could come up with, save maybe unhygienic practises and antivaxers.

If there was no international travel, the chances of Quebec being covered in these West Nile Virus billboards would be much, much smaller.

But where you're getting this wrong is that it's a simple risk management model. He's not saying to stop buying Alberta oil, he's saying to take dramatic action. In your example, I'd say vaccinate. Live in a bubble if you have to. Okay, maybe shut down air travel in the extreme, but that's not the only -- or necessarily best -- answer. He's saying the same thing.

Hell, we could make it about seatbelts, home insurance or whether or not to buy seedless grapes if we wanted to.



No. change the examples to something completely different and run the thought experiment. It's a basic logic exersise. You have a problem with it because of the subject matter in this case.

You can think of a zillion unproved what if statements and grind everything to a stop worrying about it.

Putting seatbelts on saves lives. Easy. If seatbelts could not be proven to help then it should be up to the individual rather than government.

You can run emotional exercises like this and it will always come down to the sky is falling scenario so run around like chicken little screaming and doing make work projects.

Why waste time and money for a wild goose chase. How about just develop crops that work if it gets colder or warmer. How about fighting disease and poverty. Tangible benefits to society versus blanket fixes to computer model simulations that don't ever work.

[roadkill]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You can think of a zillion unproved what if statements and grind everything to a stop worrying about it.

Putting seatbelts on saves lives. Easy. If seatbelts could not be proven to help then it should be up to the individual rather than government.

You can run emotional exercises like this and it will always come down to the sky is falling scenario so run around like chicken little screaming and doing make work projects.

Why waste time and money for a wild goose chase. How about just develop crops that work if it gets colder or warmer. How about fighting disease and poverty. Tangible benefits to society versus blanket fixes to computer model simulations that don't ever work.

Or I could put up a perfectly logical example and have it go down the drain of selective perception.

Seatbelts here serve as an example of how you can plug any data into the model, nothing else.

I see exactly the tailspin you and I are going to get into if we keep this up, so I'm done. Have a nice evening.

[Unregistered user]

Seatbelts proven to save many more lives than they take can really complicate things in a T bone accident.

[greylynx]

Were there any articles that High River was due to man made climate change?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Were there any articles that High River was due to man made climate change?

Every flood, drought, hurricane, tornado, wind storm, rain storm, snow storm etc are blamed on global warning. There is no study proving that there has been any increase... Unless you consider a model being proof.

[roadkill]

It's important to note here that the article posted above is from the Daily Mail Online (aka Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday). Other headlines from today:
'Susanna Reid Accidentally Flashes her Knickers on BBC Breakfast'
and
'Justin Bieber Seems To Be Struggling to Keep His Trousers On While Performing in Singapore'
and
'The iPhone 36C: After cat paws and human toes, Apple 5S owners are now using their nipples to unlock its fingerprint scanner.'

It's also a paper that is regularly called out for poor journalism by Phil Plaitt (who had already dealt with the slowing temperature change issue the week before the article above), and owned by a publisher that has been the loser on more than one libel suit in recent years.

I'd be careful before I bought into what was being published in a two-bit tabloid. Just a thought...

[Unregistered user]

Piers morgan writes for the mail too.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by roadkill

It's important to note here that the article posted above is from the Daily Mail Online (aka Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday). Other headlines from today:
'Susanna Reid Accidentally Flashes her Knickers on BBC Breakfast'
and
'Justin Bieber Seems To Be Struggling to Keep His Trousers On While Performing in Singapore'
and
'The iPhone 36C: After cat paws and human toes, Apple 5S owners are now using their nipples to unlock its fingerprint scanner.'

It's also a paper that is regularly called out for poor journalism by Phil Plaitt (who had already dealt with the slowing temperature change issue the week before the article above), and owned by a publisher that has been the loser on more than one libel suit in recent years.

I'd be careful before I bought into what was being published in a two-bit tabloid. Just a thought...

Kinda fits that global warming trash is in a trash paper then. Read all the other posts rather than focusing on the only thing you can try to argue.

Facts still show no warming in 16 years. Computer models making predictions are failing horribly. CO2 is just not that important in the climate cycle as some would believe... and go buy a Prius and take a photo for AOF to see.

[roadkill]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Kinda fits that global warming trash is in a trash paper then. Read all the other posts rather than focusing on the only thing you can try to argue.

Facts still show no warming in 16 years. Computer models making predictions are failing horribly. CO2 is just not that important in the climate cycle as some would believe... and go buy a Prius and take a photo for AOF to see.

Need a lift?

[rugatika]

The whole thing was a farce. A hoax. A pathetic attempt by the UN and Al Gore types at separating gullible governments and people from power and money. People don't want to admit they got hoodwinked into believing the whole thing, and, like I predicted several years ago, we are now witnessing them in the final throes of denial. Looks good on em.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by roadkill

Need a lift?

Not a prius LOL

[roadkill]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Not a prius LOL

The first thing we've agreed on.

[roadkill]

Originally Posted by rugatika

The whole thing was a farce. A hoax. A pathetic attempt by the UN and Al Gore types at separating gullible governments and people from power and money. People don't want to admit they got hoodwinked into believing the whole thing, and, like I predicted several years ago, we are now witnessing them in the final throes of denial. Looks good on em.

A worldwide conspiracy aimed directly at Alberta's bottom line.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by roadkill

The first thing we've agreed on.

I knew you would post that.

[roadkill]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I knew you would post that.

LOL! Fair enough.