Global Warming Increasing Faster Than Predicted

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Global Warming Increasing Faster Than Predicted stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID | February 14, 2009 08:57 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

CHICAGO — Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned Saturday.

Carbon dioxide and other gases added to the air by industrial and other activities have been blamed for rising temperatures, increasing worries about possible major changes in weather and climate.

Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"It is now outside the entire envelope of possibilities" considered in the 2007 report of the International Panel on Climate Change, he said. The IPCC and former vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Prize for drawing attention to the dangers of climate change.

The largest factor in this increase is the widespread adoption of coal as an energy source, Field said, "and without aggressive attention societies will continue to focus on the energy sources that are cheapest, and that means coal."

Past projections for declines in the emissions of greenhouse gases were too optimistic, he added. No part of the world had a decline in emissions from 2000 to 2008.

Anny Cazenave of France's National Center for Space Studies told the meeting that improved satellite measurements show that sea levels are rising faster than had been expected.

Rising oceans can pose a threat to low level areas such as South Florida, New York and other coastal areas as the ocean warms and expands and as water is added from melting ice sheets.

Story continues below
advertisement

And the rise is uneven, with the fastest rising areas at about 1 centimeter _ 0.39 inch _ per year in parts of the North Atlantic, western Pacific and the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, she said.

Also, highly promoted efforts to curb carbon emissions through the use of biofuels may even backfire, other researchers said.

Demand for biologically based fuels has led to the growing of more corn in the United States, but that means fields were switched from soybeans to corn, explained Michael Coe of the Woods Hole Research Center.

But there was no decline in the demand for soy, he said, meaning other countries, such as Brazil, increased their soy crops to make up for the deficit.

In turn, Brazil created more soy fields by destroying tropical forests, which tend to soak up carbon dioxide. Instead the forests were burned, releasing the gasses into the air.

The increased emissions from Brazil swamp any declines recorded by the United States, he said.

Holly Gibbs of Stanford University said that if crops like sugar and oil palm are planted after tropical forests are burned, the extra carbon released may be balanced by lower emissions from biofuel in 40 to 120 years, but for crops such as corn and cassava it can take hundreds of years to break equal.

"If we run our cars on biofuels produced in the tropics, chances will be good that we are effectively burning rainforests in our gas tanks," she said.

However, there could be benefits from planting crops for biofuels on degraded land, such as fields that are not offering low productivity due to salinity, soil erosion or nutrient leaching.

"In a sense that would be restoring land to a higher potential," she said. But there would be costs in fertilizer and improved farming practices.

In some cases simply allowing the degraded land to return to forest might be the best answer, she said.

___

On the Net:

AAAS: http://www.aaas.org

CHICAGO — Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned Saturday. Carbon dioxide and other gases a...
CHICAGO — Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned Saturday. Carbon dioxide and other gases a...
Filed by Nick Graham
 
Comments
1110
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
- Clavis I'm a Fan of Clavis 38 fans permalink

Global Warming is a hoax! I know, because Jesus told me when he and I were hanging out with Elvis and Santa Claus at the North Pole!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

You had a party and didn't invite me? I could have brought the champagne.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 02/17/2009

haha, northern states have hit low temperature records, and the people up there are beginning to think global warming is a big joke. For many its the coldest its ever been, but no! Fear global warming, when temperatures hit record lows, that means global warming is getting worse!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 02/17/2009
- indywoman I'm a Fan of indywoman 25 fans permalink

wow, when will people learn that it isn't about hot weather??!!?? It is about the earth warming by 1 or 2 degrees, which can cause conditions to melt the polar icecaps. And its about drastic weather. Record breaking hurricanes, tsunami's, tornado's,

I'm so sick of idiots like Dennis Miller who speak of a 1 degree temperature difference like its so small they won't even notice. A person who ignores science and spreads falsehoods truly hurts mankind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 02/17/2009
- MGhamma I'm a Fan of MGhamma 12 fans permalink

haha, Australia has hit record high temps a full 2-3 degrees C, or a full 5-7 degrees F above average. Seems the southern hemisphere is baking. Average temps for the US are .9 degrees C cooler than average. But since parts of the northern hemisphere are experiencing the same full 2-3 C(5-7 F) above average temps, the average temps for the northern hemisphere are only .2 C below average. Once again, it's GLOBAL warming, not UNITED STATES warming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Northern states = weather so I skipped the rest of what you said.. The discussion here is about global warming and CO2 emission rates, in case you would like to discuss those subjects.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 02/17/2009
- Artos I'm a Fan of Artos 82 fans permalink

When the deniers of the Global Warming find themselves flopping around on the ground gasping like a fish out of water then they will believe finally that the world is messed up. I have seen the signs for some time in the fact that the obituaries carry more and more notices of people who are dying form respiratory illnesses. Everyday I wake up my nasal passages are stuffy and the air outdoors stinks of civilization. It has come to pass that our greed is killing us and that karma will out. We have signed our own certificate of extinction. Perhaps it is our just due and in the end perhaps too the world may heal itself without our continued existence. Hopefully the innocent species that did no harm and do not deserve to have been made extinct will survive and if they ever evolve to become an "intelligent" species, that they will have learned from our stupid self serving mistakes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 02/17/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

Wow, you should apply for a job with the IPCC -- lots of science in your post ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 02/17/2009

This article is about global warming but has no discussion of temperature. The title is misleading. The title should be "Carbon Emissions Rate Increasing", with the assumption (and no proof) that temperatures rose by a corresponding amount in that time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Titles are often misleading - doesn't excuse misleading comments and ignoring science as do many contributors to this thread.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 02/17/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

There is no science to ignore -- only faith-based fear-mongering.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 02/17/2009

I hope someone forwarded this story to George Will. Mr Will, of course ever the pedant, in Sunday's OpEd presented the case that global warming and climate change is a hoax. Rumor is his next editorial will support the "flat earth" theory. It's hard to imagine that anyone porporting to be as bright as Mr. Will could be so ill-informed and, at the same time, so arrogant in his comments. I wonder if Mr. Will is concerned that the ever-decreasing "denial" crowd is now made-up almost exclusively of far rightwing religious fundamentalists and a few scientists with degrees from Southern Bible Colleges where they still deny evolution in their biology classes...­......come on, George, get a grip!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

And scientists who work in the coal and oil industries who won't know how to make a living after the changes. They will have to go on disability.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 02/17/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

He is a skeptic.

"For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

A true skeptic would examine both sides of an issue and not keep repeating ideas such as it has been cooling for a decade, when just a simple amount of research would show he is wrong. I therefore conclude he has no interest in doing research to discover the truth.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 02/17/2009

George Will is a liar.
from tpm muckraker,
Both of Will's major "data points" fall apart after a moment's scrutiny.

According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

But within hours of Will's column appearing, the ACRC had posted the following statement on its website:
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.
the rest is on the website,but its amazing that people get away with this kind of outright fraud without a factchecker.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 AM on 02/17/2009

January and February totals will have to be recalculated, due to the failure of the SSM/I sensor
on the the DMSP satellite. Data for at least 45 days was corrupted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 02/20/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

I just thought I would post some data here.
Average global temperature. I took the yearly average temperature and averaged it each decade starting in 1880. The last point is 2000 to 2008. Results in degrees.
(Quick and dirty, did not check spread sheet formula programming, etc but seems consistent with spot checks).
This says nothing about AGW. It is simply a table of average temperatures. The last three decades have been the warmest since 1880.

-0.26 1880 to 1889
-0.27
-0.26
-0.29
-0.15
-0.03
0.06
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.18
0.32
0.51 2000 to 2008

SOURCE
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN 1880-01/2009 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST1
12/1981-01/2009 Reynolds v2
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 AM on 02/17/2009
- Bruupo I'm a Fan of Bruupo 13 fans permalink

Wow, he is really reaching, he did everything but throw in the ubiquitous (and erroneous) citing of Moore's Law to which global warming deniers constantly cling.

Can George Will name five things he successfully predicted in the last eight years? How 'bout just one thing he was right about in that time? Lots of "credentialed intellectual" economists and experts were accurately predicting every aspect of our current economic "calamity"- that should've meant it was impossible, right?- How'd Will do on that score?

Of course, even though he tries to find a more sophisticated replacement for Moore's Law in his argument, that still doesn't stop him from stooping so low as to quote climate data from the 1970's- when the effects of particulate matter where just being detected- when the clean air act had yet to have an impact- when the data ACCURATELY predicted that the climate would cool because it would have, if humans hadn't stopped filling the atmosphere with particulate garbage as fast as we possibly could.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 02/17/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

This is just a clarification: I believe you mean Murphy's Law, unless you really are talking about semiconductor density.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 02/17/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

But just for the record: do you believe George Will is wrong when he says the planet has cooled in the last ten years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 AM on 02/17/2009

Georgie is always wrong.And hes a liar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 02/17/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

This article is one example of why the words "peer-reviewed" don't count for much in climate science. There are so many potential sources of bias that these results cannot be taken seriously. First, only 30 percent of "experts" engaged in one of the most controversial areas of science could be troubled to answer a two-minute online survey?Is it any wonder that those who did respond would agree with the questions (i.e., self-selection). The self-selected respondents would be expected to agree with both questions because their livelihood depends on continuation of AGW hysteria. Question 1 is a known fact: temperatures have indeed been increasing since the "little ice age". Question 2 was poorly specified: what is the definition of "significant"? Statistical significance is often set at 5% -- is this what they mean?

My conclusion would be that only 24.6% of climate scientists took the time to respond to a two minute survey AND agreed that AGW is true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Sorry, I forgot myself. I have this bad tendency to look at data. I forget that's why the WP is there, so I don't have to waste my time doing such nonsense.

Do you ever wonder what Katherine Graham would be thinking these days?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 AM on 02/18/2009
- zola77 I'm a Fan of zola77 29 fans permalink
photo

No scientists have said that CO2 is toxic - its mainly written by journalists who dont know how to interpret scientific data.

The atmosphere needs to be balanced for life to succeed. Too much or too little of one element (including oxygen) can be poisonous - in the wrong doses. For around 100 years scientists have been tracking the climate (i.e it didnt start with al gore - this has been talked about for decades).

Scientists have been warning for that time that increased deforestation coupled with increased burning of fossil fuels unbalanced the atmosphere.

CO2 and methane, at their current (and increasing) levels are toxic for life on earth.

Its like baking a cake. You have a balanced recipe to make a cake. You have a little wiggle room to experiment, but you have to stay within certain parameters to make the cake successful. If you add too much flour and too little water, you dont get a cake - you get a big mess, because you have gone outside those parameters.

Thats what we have now. We have gone outside the parameters and are now making a mess. The answer is trying to restore a balance, and keep it.

Some websites for more info:

350DOTorg
realclimateDOTcom

Articlehtt­p://wwwDOT­alternetDO­Torg/envir­onment/126­910/firest­orms_and_d­eep_freeze­:_climate_­change_may­_bring_bot­h/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 AM on 02/17/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is at a historic low, or near low. The idea that the current level is toxic to life on Earth is a complete falsehood.

10,000 PPM (parts per million) will make people feel drowsy.
70,000-100,000 PPM will cause headaches and nausea, and eventually unconsciousness.
50,000 PPM will kill some insects.

We are currently at 380 PPM in our atmosphere.

CO2 is routinely pumped into greenhouses to promote plant growth.
The desired CO2 concentration for this purpose is about 1,300 PPM but can go higher, depending on the plants and temperature conditions.
Plants show reduced growth at levels below 340 PPM.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 AM on 02/17/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

"Experiments have shown that plants can handle up to 10,000 PPM of CO2 with no ill effects. At very high light densities, indoor plants have a maximum CO2 uptake of just over 2,000 PPM."

From HydroEmpire, an online merchant of hydroponic growing equipment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 AM on 02/17/2009
- MGhamma I'm a Fan of MGhamma 12 fans permalink

And pro athletes benefit by breathing pure oxigen, but no one is claiming that that would work in the real world. Yours is nothing but a manufactured arguement, and has nothing to do with the global warming subject. Get off it already.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

January 20, 2009
(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

So the idea is that temperatures started rising immediately upon the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and presumably as a result of it?

As industrial activity was puny at least until WWI it would mean that any level of human industrial activity is able to change the Earth's climate in a negative way.

Are you sure you believe that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Did you read the above post? Or do you just automatically ignore information and facts which do not correspond with your beliefs?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Did you actually read the post before you responded to it? Do you automatically reject information and facts which do not go along with your be lief s.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 AM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

That's not what I read. Why do you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Be sure and read the Bremby article. He has helped to save Kansas and this area from another polluting energy factory. The fight continues. Here is one quote from it:

Bremby: We're on the cusp of an emerging economy, an economy built around low-carbon consumption. China is often cited for its large carbon footprint, but it's probably second only to Germany in its current renewable energy investments. We have the opportunity to focus strategically in terms of our competitiveness.

Sethi: Now Sunflower's pursuing legal action in federal and state courts and is, again, appealing to the legislature. In an interview with the Washington Post, Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller said your ruling "has no basis in law or regulation." What kind of pressure has this put on you to reverse or amend your decision?

Bremby: I have felt no pressure. In all of Sunflower's arguments against the decision, there hasn't been any use of the same facts [that I used]. If they had referenced the Massachusetts V. EPA Supreme Court ruling or the IPCC reports, perhaps that would give us some pause to listen. In most cases, they haven't mentioned any of the legal or scientific bases for my decision.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

I just want to remind readers of the difference between climate and weather.
The statement "Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous." correctly refers to weather, The earth could be warming, even, rapidly, and yet parts of the earth could become cooler
and we could have unusually cold or even warm years. Climate change deals with averages over many years. A one or two year change says nothing about global warming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 02/17/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

This article is one example of why the words "peer-reviewed" don't count for much in climate science. There are so many potential sources of bias that these results cannot be taken seriously. First, only 30 percent of "experts" engaged in one of the most controversial areas of science could be troubled to answer a two-minute online survey?Is it any wonder that those who did respond would agree with the questions (i.e., self-selection). The self-selected respondents would be expected to agree with both questions because their livelihood depends on continuation of AGW hysteria. Question 1 is a known fact: temperatures have indeed been increasing since the "little ice age". Question 2 was poorly specified: what is the definition of "significant"? Statistical significance is often set at 5% -- is this what they mean?

My conclusion would be that only 24.6% of climate scientists took the time to respond to a two minute survey AND agreed that AGW is true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Why would you expect only those on one side of the question to be "troubled to answer."

You seem to be accusing one quarter of this group of experts of scientific fraud. Is that what you intend?

Where do you get the idea that "Statistical significance is often set at 5%" ? What do you mean by "set at 5%"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 02/17/2009
- Hoisin I'm a Fan of Hoisin 2 fans permalink

Wait, I though fear mongering was a things only Republicans did. lol!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

All the while the Sahara desert is shrinking and greening, presumably without Professor Field's help. In general it seems fair to say that civilization has fared well in previous warm periods.

So we have seriously underestimated the reality? Wouldn't that show up in global temperatures, which in fact have been dropping since 1998?

This graph http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif may help bring some perspective to historic temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

This from a dues paying fellow who belongs to the Sierra club and an expert on bogus links at the same time. I think he is a double agent.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Are you interested in the truth or do you just want to convince people of your point of view.

1) I assume you are not a climate scientist (no peer reviewed articles in climate science journals).

2) If you are not a scientist, then you are trying to form an opinion, as a lay person, on results of a large body of very complicated scientific investigations by thousands of scientists.

3) I would therefore assume you would look at a source of information (like the web site you referenced), try to understand it, and then research what climatologists have to say about it.

4) I would also assume you would have checked before posting, your statement on global temperature.

Let me know if I am wrong about 1 and 2. As for 3, you obviously did not do any research or you would know what is wrong about the graph you point to and the website, and the conclusions you want the reader to come to.- makes me think I might be wrong about 2) above.

Item 4 is interesting. It requires almost no understanding, of anything, to check that fact. It is just plain wrong.

You could have done some very simple research to discover you are wrong. Why didn't you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

There is a difference between telling the truth and fear mongering. See, the difference is fear mongering is bogus which is what repubs are. There you go and you're welcome. then.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Do you think you could have gotten 90% of scientists to agree that there was WMD in Iraq? If not, then that was fear mongering.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 02/16/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

This article is one example of why the words "peer-reviewed" don't count for much in climate science. There are so many potential sources of bias that these results cannot be taken seriously. First, only 30 percent of "experts" engaged in one of the most controversial areas of science could be troubled to answer a two-minute online survey?Is it any wonder that those who did respond would agree with the questions (i.e., self-selection). The self-selected respondents would be expected to agree with both questions because their livelihood depends on continuation of AGW hysteria. Question 1 is a known fact: temperatures have indeed been increasing since the "little ice age". Question 2 was poorly specified: what is the definition of "significant"? Statistical significance is often set at 5% -- is this what they mean?

My conclusion would be that only 24.6% of climate scientists took the time to respond to a two minute survey AND agreed that AGW is true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Posted Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:02pm AEDT


Professor Field says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas, making them much more likely to suffer from bushfires. (AAP: Simon Mossman, file photo)
One of the world's leading experts on climate change says a Nobel Prize-winning panel of scientists seriously underestimated the reality of global warming when it published its report just over a year ago.

Professor Chris Field, a leading member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which released the report, says he and his fellow researchers did not have access to vital data.

Professor Field says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas, making them much more likely to suffer from bushfires.

He says recent climate studies suggest global warming could also melt permafrost in the Artic tundra.

These events would release billions of tons of greenhouse gasses that could raise global temperatures even more.

The report did not have data on emissions of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2007 which show far more rapid rises than had been predicted.

These increases in carbon have been caused principally by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China.

He has told an American science conference in Chicago that global warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than previously predicted.

continued below:

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

This is nothing but a litany of unfounded fears.

"...global warmins is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace." But it hasn't---during the 2000-2007 period he describes it has, as a matter of fact, gone the other way. It has gotten colder.

I wonder if that matters at all, considering that this is the exact period when he says emissions have increased the most. Is he positing that the global warming effect is somehow delayed, although we know, according to AGW theory, that CO2 should begin warming the atmosphere from the very moment it is released?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

And the double agent speaks again. (with a forked tongue)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

See my above post, but just to play along.
2002 was 0.56 degrees warmer than 2000
2004 was 0.48 degrees warmer than 2000
2006 was 0.54 degrees warmer than 2000
2008 was 0.44 degrees warmer than 2000

I could have included the odd years, no change just longer table.
How can you say it has gotten colder since 2000?
I could have started with 1917, it would have been really impressive, but I don't like to cook the data. What I am showing has no bearing on AGW, but at least my statements are correct (I can provide references and data set if you want).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 AM on 02/17/2009

Yes, we all know that's what you like to SAY. You know what I like to say? That I'm a blonde, 100 lb superstar named Candy. Doesn't make it so, and of course, I don't offer any proof, but I like to say it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink



"Fossil emissions have proceeded much more rapidly than anticipated in any of the scenerios that were characterised in detail," he said.

"The consequence of that is that we are basically entering a domain of climate change that has not been explored by the models.

"We're on a different trajectory of emissions and therefore an unknown trajectory of warming."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

This is completely unsupported speculation. What I typically hear about is a doubling of CO2 by 2100. How does fit with his statements?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

It is unsupported by SFTor as he has been put in charge of propaganda by the coal industry who is currently trying to figure out how in the H they are going to be able to come up with the 800 million to clean up Roane County Tennessee and still pay for the PR that will be needed to sell people on more coal plants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Completely unsupported by sftor, but SUPported by 90 % of climatologists and 82 % of scientists. Of course sftor doesn't need science, just Chevron CEO's unbiased words.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, in an email interview:

"The most coherent explanation is that climate is changing because of burning of fossil fuels and felling forests. The health, environmental, and economic costs of inaction are rapidly becoming unmanageable. Stabilizing the climate will require a clean energy transition that will also benefit public health, improve energy security, and can become the engine of economic growth for this 21st century.

"We're seeing changes in asthma, heat wave deaths, and the spread of infectious diseases that are indicative of enormous changes affecting the environment. Climate and disease are stalking humans, wildlife, agriculture, forests, and marine habitat; which are our life support systems."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

Yes he is saying that, but there is no evidence for connecting the burning of fossil fuels and the felling of forests with any of the enumerated ills.

He is also talking about "stabilizing the climate." It has been repeated to distraction that world climate has never been stable on any timescale.

Especially the claim of spreading infectious diseases is egregious. That has been rather soundly debunked. The idea that global warming, what little there is of it, is causing asthma seems completely outlandish as well. Could anyone help with the causality on that one?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

Please note the knee jerk reactionary retorts without consulting any scientists. SFTor is like Bush, apparently communicating directly with the environmental gods who talk only in his ears and as far as I know, he isn't on any legal d r u g s .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

"Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs." 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility." (From the National Geologic Society) Also, you probably missed the post written by the Harvard Doctor. Anymore questions Dr. Doubt.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 AM on 02/17/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Why don't you for once do a little research for yourself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 AM on 02/17/2009

Blahblahblah whinebitchmoan. IT's all made up! No, of course I won't back up my statements with cited research, that's for yellowbellies! I KNOW my SUV runs on flowers and puppy poop and makes the earth cooler. Stop saying d u m b things without attribution as if it'll convince anyone here. Newsflash: We're literate and enjoy rational, logical thought. You have no power here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 57 fans permalink

If you go to this link, it will show a graph which includes the data from three sources which indicate an increase which was fairly sharp from 1980 to 2005. Check it out.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

Here is something that puzzles me: if GISS states that 1934 was the warmest year on record in the 20th century, why doesn't it show up in the graph?

Either the graph or their top ten list is wrong. Which is it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 02/16/2009
- MGhamma I'm a Fan of MGhamma 12 fans permalink

Because the graph is global temps, not just the US. STFor, are you arguing with yourself?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 02/16/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect