More

Climate Change, Natural Disasters Could Displace 200 Million People By 2050: Refugees International Report

SEBASTIAN ABBOT   11/22/10 03:17 AM ET   AP

Pakistan

ISLAMABAD — The U.S. and other countries must recognize the threat represented by the massive floods that hit Pakistan earlier this year and increase preparation for a growing number of natural disasters caused by climate change, a new report said Monday.

It is estimated that as many as 200 million people will be displaced by natural disasters and climate change around the world by 2050, said the report by Washington, D.C.-based Refugees International. The world's poorest and most crisis-prone countries will be disproportionately affected.

"The massive flooding in Pakistan is a wake-up call that starkly highlights the real threats we face from climate-related disasters," said Michel Gabaudan, president of Refugees International. "Given the high costs of responding to these catastrophic events, it is in our best interest to plan now for the massive human displacement they cause and protect those most at risk."

This summer's floods in Pakistan submerged one-fifth of the country, an area the size of Louisiana, and affected more than 20 million people. The disaster caught both the Pakistani government and the humanitarian community by surprise and overwhelmed their response capabilities.

Many experts believe the floods were the result of climate change, said the report. Others believe the science is uncertain, it said, but most agree that natural disasters are occurring more frequently and that the international community is ill-equipped to respond.

"The floods in Pakistan provide an opportunity to draw lessons and address some of the underlying factors that rendered so many people vulnerable to begin with," said Alice Thomas, co-author of the report and Climate Displacement Program Manager for Refugees International.

"With some foresight and critical thinking, we can implement effective programs to prevent long-term displacement and get people back on their feet more quickly after a disaster occurs," she added.

The organization called on the United States, which is the largest donor to Pakistan, to prepare a report on how its assistance will help the country prepare for climate-related disasters. That includes reducing risk to the most vulnerable residents, who are often the poorest, and improving the government's response when a disaster hits.

"The failure to address the threat of climate displacement could undermine the long-term stability of countries likely to experience increased floods, storms, droughts and other disasters," said Gabaudan, the Refugees International chief. "Taking preventive steps now will strengthen these countries and provide support to the world's poorest people."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

ISLAMABAD — The U.S. and other countries must recognize the threat represented by the massive floods that hit Pakistan earlier this year and increase preparation for a growing number of natural ...
ISLAMABAD — The U.S. and other countries must recognize the threat represented by the massive floods that hit Pakistan earlier this year and increase preparation for a growing number of natural ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 928
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:26 PM on 12/19/2010
Last call!

Challenge to Poptech, SoCalledHo­tOne, and/or D3N14L:

A while ago, a user who describes himself as a skeptic but emphatical­ly not a denier asked an open question to all readers of the thread: How do scientists _know_ that the increase in atmospheri­c CO₂ is the result of human activity? Can any of you tell him the method used to attribute CO₂ concentrat­ion to natural vs. anthropoge­nic sources?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:55 PM on 12/02/2010
Ultimately, I'm as critical of SCHO as everybody else, but I also think it's worth mentioning that of the three I asked to address fs2's question, she's the only one who even replied. Her answers are more politics & PR than science, and the effort doesn't _prove_ that she's honestly misguided rather than a paid shill, but she at least offers some evidence of making a sincere effort (albeit easily frustrated & angered), unlike and better than anything ever witnessed from Poptech, fumes, Richard2, SFTor, et al; to some extent at least, she seems to recognize that civilized methods of persuasion are prerequisite to persuading others.

Without the non-verbal cues that are unique to in-person conversation I won't go out on any limbs, but I am curious whether more of a "convince me" approach, as opposed to attempting to convince her, would be productive with SCHO.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:06 AM on 12/03/2010
I can't agree with you there, OR - SoCalWarming's incessant lying and repetition of falsehoods and disinformation that has been repeatedly debunked is IMO ample proof that she isn't is being sincere.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:06 AM on 12/09/2010
Well I'm not sure about it either, and she certainly is not being scientific. But from what I've heard, most people don't decide much of anything, much less about politics, scientifically or rationally. The normal process in the population at large is to decide on a belief emotionally, and then only use facts to rationalIZE one's biases, not to actually decide anything rationally. And since SoCalledHotOne's perspective, by her own admission, is rooted in a conspiracy theory about some Club of Rome rather than on a particular scientific theory, it's conceivable to me that she's a sincere dupe, albeit not very intellectually honest in her rationalizations, either.

I don't believe she believes her own assertions of fact, because I believe that even she knows that she doesn't know a fact from her own backside. I do believe she *might* sincerely believe in her cause though. On the other hand, Occam's Razor favors your interpretation, since my hypothesis is so much more complicated than "she's dishonest." Anyway, my efforts to extend her an olive branch have been met with such hostility, I'm bored with my own attempt to attribute any moral validity to her or her position.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:51 AM on 12/03/2010
Thought about this for a while, decided it would be best to just pass. Would be great to be able to promote this person to honest skeptic status.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:50 AM on 12/02/2010
"One of the most serious consequenc­es of our actions is global warming, brought about by rising levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- Dr. Stephen Hawking

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=mu1PicT0T­MU
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:26 AM on 12/02/2010
SoCalWamer: "You might want to find out where your friend lives. If he lives in, say, Madison, Wisconsin, you could just show him the temperatur­e record there and tell him he's got nothing to worry about, because global warming isn't happening there."

http://www­.appinsys.­com/Global­Warming/cl­imgraph.as­px?pltparm­s=GHCNT100­AJanDecI18­8020090900­110AR42572­641000x "

You are lying again, SoCalWarmer.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, even assuming that station's temperature data is correct* it shows more than a degree C warming since 1970. It in fact shows 1.3 degrees C -- or 2.3 degrees F -- warming since then.

And then there's the fact - also pointed out to you repeatedly - that unchecked global warming will affect the entire United States whether there is warming in one's own home area or not.

[* As has also been demonstrated to you repeatedly SoCalWarmer, that science denier site you keep citing - appinsys.com - deceives via misrepresenting / cherry-picking of data.]

-------------------------------

Q: Why can't science deniers read graphs?

A: Because they are science deniers, of course.
12:56 AM on 12/02/2010
@ObjectiveRealist

How to talk to a friend that is worried about global warming:

You might want to find out where your friend lives. If he lives in, say, Madison, Wisconsin, you could just show him the temperature record there and tell him he's got nothing to worry about, because global warming isn't happening there.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020090900110AR42572641000x

And if he lives in any of the following places, and many others, global warming isn't happening there either. So he can just look up the station data for his or her city, and even cross check that with the Global Historical Climate Network through nasa.gov.

Darwin, Australia
Brisbane, Australia
Adelaide, Australia
Madison, Wisconsin
Farmington­, Maine,
Abilene, Texas
Temple, Texas
Conway, Arkansas
Springfiel­d, Missouri
Carlsbad, New Mexico
Albuquerqu­e, New Mexico
Stillwater­, Oklahoma
Lewiston, Idaho
Olympia, Washington
Portland, Oregon
Tillamook, Oregon
Marysville­, California
Mount Shasta, California
Long Beach, California
Quixeramob­im, Brasil
Punta Arenas, Chile
Bahia Blanca, Argentina
Fort Pierce, Florida
Arcadia, Florida
Capetown, South Africa
Antanarivo­, Madagascar
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Harare, Zimbabwe
Dakar, Senegal
Prague, Czech Republic
Thessaloni­ki, Greece
Bucurest, Romania

If he's still ready to wet the bed over global warming, you might explain the 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 found in the ice cores from Vostok. You could explain the Medieval Warm Period. If the temperature record for his or her city looks like there is warming you may need to explain the urban heat island effect.
12:58 AM on 12/02/2010
If he's still wetting his bed over global warming, you could also explain how climategate revealed that the "scientists" made up data, destroyed the data that upset their theory, rigged the peer reviewed journals, and added "fudge factors" to their "global average".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:41 AM on 12/02/2010
Cute. But do you know how to ascertain the atmospheric ratio of naturally occurring CO₂ to anthropogenic CO₂ or not?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:28 AM on 12/02/2010
Yawn.

You're lying again, SoCalWarmer.
01:03 AM on 12/02/2010
If that doesn't work, it might be time for diapers and/or rubber sheets. But you could also read him a bedtime story from a few years back.

"In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutiv­e year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims...­record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries.­..As they review the bizarre and unpredicta­ble weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradict­ory meteorolog­ical fluctuatio­ns are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorolog­ists take an average of temperatur­es around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatolog­ical Cassandras are becoming increasing­ly apprehensi­ve, for the weather aberration­s they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
-TIME MAGAZINE, 1974
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:36 AM on 12/02/2010
Science denier talking points never die, no matter how many times a stake has been driven through their hearts.

‪"In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"‬

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
11:53 PM on 12/01/2010
Nice, but for a moment, let's stop beating around the bush, OK?

Richard2 aside, I'd like to think most people, even AGW deniers, feel their views are consistent with what's best for most people, or most Americans, or most middle and upper-class Americans, or at least some major sector thereof to which they think they themselves belong.

Anyway, if so...

what I'd like to know is, presuming you all think yours is the morally superior perspective, why you feel you must consistently, willfully and knowingly lie incessantly about significant details concerning AGW, as well as climate science in general.

I mean, if you feel your goals for this country and your viewpoint stemming from it are more correct than and superior to other views, why would you feel any need to lie about or deny facts that you already knew or have come by now to know are facts?

No, I don't expect you (and you know exactly who you are; whether other people do is immaterial to this point) to answer me in any honest fashion (that would idiotically idealistic).

I just want you to think about it, the next time you're rampantly lying your way through some discussion here.

Why do you feel the need to keep lying?

Is it lying for the greater good?

Lying to save face?

Lying because most of the time you manage to forget or ignore that you're constantly lying?

Lying for convenience?

What prompts you to lie so much?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:21 PM on 11/30/2010
Challenge to Poptech, SoCalledHotOne, and/or D3N14L:

A while ago, a user who claims to be a skeptic but emphatically not a denier asked, how do scientists _know_ that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is the result of human activity. Can any of you tell him the method used to attribute CO₂ concentration to natural vs. anthropogenic source?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:27 PM on 11/30/2010
I like this strategy!
01:12 AM on 12/01/2010
I don't recall any one of us arguing that the level of CO2 did not have a component that was anthropogenic, only that the anthropogenic portion, and CO2 itself in the atmosphere is insignificant at less than .04% of the atmosphere.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:24 AM on 12/01/2010
I agree. I don't recall any of you "arguing that the level of CO2 did not have a component that was anthropoge­nic" either. I'd just like for you to explain to a skeptic who has not made up his mind one way or the other, how we do know what proportion of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration _is_ anthropogenic. Among other factors, I thought it would bias the guy least if he gets information that tends to support ACC theory, explained to him by somebody who believes the opposite hypothesis. His name is freespeech2 and I'm sure his question is at least on the second page of this thread by now, if not page 3.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:29 AM on 12/01/2010
SoCalWarmer: "I don't recall any one of us arguing that the level of CO2 did not have a component that was anthropoge­nic"

Do you agree that the nearly 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the dawn of the fossil fuel era is mostly due to fossil fuel burning, SoCalWarmer?

And if not, why not?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:51 AM on 11/29/2010
Credibility:

Publicola:
For example, when are you going to remove the following patent, science denier tabloid-so­­urced lie from your webpages?

Poptech:
"Climatega­­te U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"
(Source: UK Daily Mail)

Publicola:
Oh, right - as you have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrat­­ing that you have no intent or interest in keeping disinforma­­tion and lies off of your webpages.

UK Daily Mail, today's headlines:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1334073/Kendra-Wilkinson-slips-tiny-bikini-declaring-My-body-back.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1333870/Jennifer-Aniston-shows-figure-black-bikini.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1334039/Brooke-Hogan-paw-ses-pose-beach-tiger-print-bikini.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1333801/Lembit-Opik-hits-beach-21-year-old-girlfriend-Merily-McGivern.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1333875/Im-A-Celebrity-2010-Kayla-Collins-strips-bikini-slap-tickle-pool-Aggro-Santos.html

That is the tabloid Poptech trusts for his science.
11:59 AM on 11/29/2010
I don't trust it for my "science". I trust peer-reviewed papers,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

News site like the Daily Mail I trust for inconvenient news stories,

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469277/Eco-warrior-Al-Gore-serves-endangered-fish-daughters-party.html

Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500586/Al-Gore-criticised-lining-pockets-3-300-minute-green-speech.html

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486969/Judge-attacks-errors-Al-Gores-alarmist-climate-change-film.html

'Polars Bears on the brink? Don't you believe it' (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500424/Polars-bears-brink-Dont-believe-it.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:05 PM on 11/29/2010
For corroborating evidence of your assertion you cite yourself, your own website.

Where exactly did you get your education on doing research? Breitbart Academy?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:02 PM on 11/29/2010
Poopstench: "YOU do not define the context of MY WORDS. Get used to it big boy."

Not by myself, no; the entire conversation does define the context of your words, and in the context of this conversation, you clearly did try to pass off Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen as a physical scientist, while you knew full well all along that she is only a political scientist, as anybody can see:
Poopstench­'s sophistry:
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/Pop­tech/clima­te-change-­natural-di­_n_786718_­68979693.h­tml
"She is a scientist ...
I never said Natural Scientist.­"

(In her own words, she is a political scientist who in college took barely the general education requiremen­ts in math and physical science -- nowhere near a double major, or even a minor in any branch of physical science or mathematics.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:00 PM on 11/29/2010
Poopstench's sophistry:

(In her own words, she is a political scientist who in college took barely the general education requirements in math and physical science -- nowhere near a double major, or even a minor in any branch of physical science.)
"She is a scientist,
Sonja Boehmer-Ch­ristiansen­, M.A. Physical Geography, Adelaide University­, Ph.D. Environmen­tal Policy ...
I never said Natural Scientist."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-natural-di_n_786718_68979693.html

In the context of this discussion it's perfectly clear that what Poopstench was trying to get away with was forging equal credibility in the physical sciences, which are relevant to climatology.
12:21 PM on 11/29/2010
SubjectiveSurrealist,

Quote where I said "Natural Scientist". Just like all your other strawman arguments and phony mind reading abilities they come up empty. YOU do not define the context of MY WORDS. Get used to it big boy.

Her credentials make you look like a joke,

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, M.A. Physical Geography, Adelaide University, Ph.D. Environmental Policy (International Control of Marine Pollution), Emeritus Reader of Environmental Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:19 PM on 11/30/2010
"Natural Scientist"

Is your only defense of your honor and credibility that your attempt to deceive did not -- in this case -- take the form of an outright lie?

Below, you claim:
"The editor does not have to as she has an editorial advisory board and the reviewers are specialist­s in the field any paper would be in."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-natural-di_n_786718_68870835.html

&

"This is irrelevant as editors do not review the papers, they with assistance from the editorial board assign editors who do have the proper qualificat­ions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-natural-di_n_786718_68966698.html

And I must admit, I do see your point. Nobody likes to be micro-managed, but occasionally, in any organization, the leader has to be _able_ to resolve disagreements among those lower in the hierarchy, and that requires not just "people skills" but substantial knowledge of the standards of achievement in the relevant domains whenever job performance is at issue.

So, suppose two of her qualified editors disagree on the merit of a submitted interdisciplinary paper which is equally pertinent to both subject matter experts' fields. Specifically, their disagreement is about the validity of a mathematical method that is vital to supporting the paper's _primary_ conclusion.

How would a lead editor so lacking in mathematical qualifications as Boehmer-Christiansen resolve this disagreement when it inevitably occurs? How could she, but arbitrarily, according to her admitted political bias?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
samtee
Shankapotomus.
09:05 AM on 11/29/2010
Or it could not
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:39 AM on 11/29/2010
Wokka-wokka!
02:04 PM on 11/28/2010
There's been a lot of discusion below concerning the validity of publications and the importance of peer-review in assessing it. I don't know much about Energy & Environemnt, nor its review processess. I'd like to add a couple more criteria that should be added that were standard in primary science journals in which I published.

1) How much advertising is present? I realize publishing costs were rising and some journals had to resort to paid advertising, but a jouranl that is largely advertising is really more a trade journal than a science journal.

2) Do the authors pay a page charge for publishing their work? And did they disclose the source of the funding?

Both are excellent filters for garbage entering in the stream of technical information.

In the current climate where science and politics are becoming interwoven in the technical arena I would add a thrid filter to the process:
Identification the reviewers (at least 3) and publication of the reviwer comments and author responses. For this service, reviewers would be compensated.
02:21 PM on 11/28/2010
Hey, I'm all for reviewers getting compensated. That would pad my meager income stream.
04:25 AM on 11/29/2010
Generally, I agree. Money corrupts.

But are the reviewers politically motivated?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:30 AM on 11/29/2010
No. That has never really been a problem except in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy nutz.
02:43 PM on 11/29/2010
There's politics in many reviews since editors generally choose reviewers with opposing points of view and/or authors who have been cited in the manuscript. No review is ever anonymous, the editor knows everyone name and affiliation.

But the politics in those cases has generally been of a technical nature - nowhere near the level of corruption that occurs in the blogosphere where evryone is anonymous and most posters have virtually no knowledge of the technical merits of any posting. This is very dangerous since it means that government officials and staff who cannot read the technical literature itsefl rely on the blogosphere to educate them. And people like you have equal technical input into their psyche as anyone else including those who know what they are talking about.

I suspect that none of the primary climate scientists follow the discussion here, so we here have to rely on a few hardy souls to keep you honest. But like roaches, you are vermin and indistructable.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
01:45 PM on 11/28/2010
SoCalWarmer: "The global warming hoax"

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.

* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
10:11 PM on 11/28/2010
A long list of arrogant claims that have never been scientifically proven trumpeted by some 2cents loudmouth who can regurgitate MSM "facts".

YAWN

'The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades...'
Explain what you mean by significantly.

'...to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.'
So if not necessarily the highest level in only the last 2000 years explain why it is that I should think that the warming is significant? Where is the undeniable link to rising CO2 levels if by your own admission you do not necessarily have one. You imply that other warming events may have occurred within human history but not with an accompanying industrial age?

'Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing."
Please provide a detailed calculation and show categorically that such and such increase in CO2 results in such and such warming. If you can not show that you have a firm grasp of the numbers then you must be firmly grasping something else.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:08 PM on 11/28/2010
Oh look: brand new-poster -- or a brand-new alias / sock-puppet -- named "D4N13L".

Me: "'The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades..."

D4N13L: "Explain what you mean by significantly."

I mean there is a statistically significant increasing global temperature trend over recent decades, and at the standard 95% confidence level.

Me: "to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more."

D4N13L: "So if not necessarily the highest level in only the last 2000 years explain why it is that I should think that the warming is significant?"

Because warming over recent decades is statistically significant at the standard 95% confidence level. That, and known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming; neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

D4N13L: "Where is the undeniable link to rising CO2 levels if by your own admission you do not necessarily have one."

What are you talking about with "by your own admission you do not necessarily have one"?

D4N13L: "You imply that other warming events may have occurred within human history but not with an accompanying industrial age?"

Yes, they have. Just as cancer also has occurred within human history but not with accompanying cigarettes.

Multiple causality - it's not just a good idea, it's realty.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:09 PM on 11/28/2010
Me: "Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing."

D4N13L: "Please provide a detailed calculation"

Sure.

The upper bound of the mean temperature of the Earth without a Greenhouse Effect is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Physics:

F = cT^4

where c is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67 10^-8 J K^-4 m^-2 s^-1

and F is the incoming solar radiation flux F = 340 W m^-2

Solving for T we get a mean temperatyre of = 254 K, or -19 degees C, which is below freezing.

Thus we know that atmospheric greenhouse gases via the Greenhouse Effect - which is as "settled" as science ever gets - warms the mean temperature of Earth above freezing.

D4N13L: "and show categorically that such and such increase in CO2 results in such and such warming."

Do to the complexity of the Earth's system that can't be done "categorically".

However. per a recent study published in Nature CO2 emissions are linked to global warming in simple linear relationship:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

Regardless of whether that relationship is correct or not, however, we know beyond any doubt whatsoever that atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the Earth.
10:14 PM on 11/28/2010
A long list of arrogant claims that have never been scientifically proven trumpeted by some 2cents loudmouth who can regurgitate MSM "facts".
"The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years."
Explain how you know so accurately the CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years and then provide a detailed discussion on the errors associated with such measurements. How reliable is the paleodata that you use to 'know' these CO2 levels.

"Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere."
A little more detail please? You know, a fair and balanced public discussion on the "data" and it's quality.

"There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming."
I'm sorry but this has never ever in the entire history of the great debacle ever, ever, been shown. It is simply an arrogant assertion and a wilful denial of due scientific process.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:31 PM on 11/28/2010
Me: "The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years."

D4N13L: "Explain how you know so accurately the CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years"

We know that via ice core records going back 800,000 years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436039b.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5752/1313
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html

D4N13L: "and then provide a detailed discussion on the errors associated with such measurements."

As you can see from the following graph, the error bars associated with said measurements are quite narrow - far more than narrow enough to rule out said levels being at or above the current atmospheric CO2 of 390 ppm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F1.html

Me: "Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere."

D4N13L: "A little more detail please?"

Sure.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Me: "There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming."

D4N13L: "I'm sorry but this has never ever in the entire history of the great debacle ever, ever, been shown."

I'm sorry but you are wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:20 AM on 11/29/2010
You've been handed your hat; I would exit stage right before further humiliating yourself. Note how increasingly feeble and short your posts are as you try to defend the indefensible, while Publicola's posts are exactly the opposite. That is the difference between denialists and scientists.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
01:35 PM on 11/28/2010
Poptech: "Correcting misinformation ... populart­e­chnology­"

Your websites are riddled with disinformation and lies, Poptech.

For example, when are you going to remove the following patent lie from your webpages?

"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"

Oh, right - as you have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrating that you have no intent or interest in keeping disinformation and lies off of your webpages.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
01:46 PM on 11/28/2010
"Oh, right - as you have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrating that you have no intent or interest in keeping disinformation and lies off of your webpages."

I've been hoping for that particular announcement since it usually involves a month-long break from the spamming of links to his low-traffic denier site. He still also hasn't told us if the earth is warming, cooling or staying the same. His site claims all three.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
07:57 AM on 11/29/2010
My disappearance from this site has to do with my lack of interest in discussing the available topics. It has never had and will never have anything to do with this link WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE BEST STORIES EVER!

Climategat­e U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

I have never removed it, will never remove it and absolutely LOVE IT!

I find it absolutely hilarious you guys think that discussing a link I absolutely LOVE, would discourage me from posting. ROFLMAO! You guys are not that bright.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:54 PM on 11/28/2010
Good to see you back. Unfortunately, I'll have to be away for the next couple of days. Sorry about provoking Pooptech to spam the forum.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:13 PM on 11/28/2010
No worries - it doesn't take much to get Poptech into a science-denier posting frenzy. Have fun; see you when you get back.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:54 AM on 11/28/2010
Poopstench:
"ISI listing is irrelevant."

Not if you'd like scientists and people versed in science to take you seriously.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:33 PM on 11/28/2010
Poopstench:
"The NCAS is not an energy industry advocacy group... "

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Details on its funding are sketchy. But I find it mighty suspicious that it is run by a fellow who is endorsed by the well-known front for oil, Heartland Institute.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Loehle
He is considered a "global warming expert" by the Heartland Institute.

Heartland Institute would never endorse anybody but one of their shills as a "global warming expert".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
Following the compilation of this SourceWatch article and articles on other websites, Heartland posted a list of responses to what it claimed was "misinformation" about the group. On its funding it stated that "in 2007 it received 71 percent of its income from foundations... No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget ... "
[Okay, let's see about those "foundations" then.]
Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received $2,960,555 (unadjusted for inflation) in grants between 1986 and 2006 from a range of foundations including:
Charles G. Koch 'Charitable' Foundation [Koch -- check, Heartland is a front for Big Oil, QED.]
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage) [and political extremism]
Walton Family Foundation

Exxon funding
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006. (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)
08:00 AM on 11/29/2010
You guys are so clueless, The Heartland Institute lists whomever they consider a "global warming expert". These people have no connection to the Institute. The fact that you think otherwise just shows how bad you are at research.
07:58 AM on 11/29/2010
Who takes it seriously or not is subjective and has nothing to do with the peer-review status of a journal,

ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers for-profit, commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
01:47 AM on 11/30/2010
"Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-revie­w status of the journal."

You mean except for Energy and Environment, right? You're hilarious.
10:01 PM on 11/27/2010
The earth's energy budget and the energy profile of CO2, and other well-known compounds, such as O2 (oxygen), H2O (water), N2, CH4 (methane) and other constituents of the atmosphere are well known, well established, and well documented. The physics community, the chemistry community, and yes climate researchers agree on these properties. If there was debate, all sorts of scientific findings would come under question. Such results are critical to all sorts of research that extends well behind climate change.

It is obvious that deniers have an ideology of their own: not spending a dime to prevent human-caused global warming. Yes there are temperature cycles. Some of those cycles cause cooling, and some of them cause warming. Relying on only one of those cycles to correct our mistakes has a good chance of failing, an extremely good chance with the passage of time.

Bottom line: if deniers are so pro-business, pro-capitalist, then instead of stifling an intelligent debate, they should be onboard with endeavors that will help us win the race against China to build out green technology. With the obstructionist tactics of the hard right, China is likely to win. And that will be great for their economy, not so good for ours. Shouldn't conservatives be happier American industry picks up those dollars?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:57 PM on 11/27/2010
Pooptech: "That is incorrect, the correct interpretation of her statement can be found here,
'Correcting' misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
[shameless plug for his deniar 'blog scrubbed as a courtesy to you, gentle reader]
E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage,
Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions ..."

In your opinion, can a journal legitimately have so broad a purview without sacrificing academic integrity?
10:15 PM on 11/27/2010
SubjectiveSurrealist,

I will provide the full citation,

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html

Of course a journal can have a broad but focused mission (energy and environment) without sacrificing academic integrity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:22 PM on 11/27/2010
Do you personally know anybody qualified to be lead editor of such a diverse list of subjects?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:29 PM on 11/27/2010
You're _not_ correcting misinformation, you're propagating it.

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf
The two researchers, with three additional co-authors, published a longer version of the paper this spring in Energy and Environment, a journal geared mainly to social scientists. The journal's editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?"

That is exactly how Stephen Schneider quoted her, without the newspaper-style "she says" in the middle of the quote. He made no change but replacing that baggage with ellipses and you lied when you asserted that he had paraphrased her. Falsely speaking ill of the dead confirms what I have always suspected about you; you have no class whatsoever.