Only Seven Years Left for Global Warming Target

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by include

The head of the UN's Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists ]

Oh my goodness Include,did you really have to put that bit in? Politics again,I expect that Mugabe will get a Noble soon for services to humanity.Or an Oscar.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by spadlet

So what do you do when the scientists don't all agree? Especially when people don't defend their work when it is criticised or make the data they are using public?

I'm not neccessarily saying the AGW isn't causing climate change but I think there is begining to be evidence for questioning whether it will make that much of a difference spending all of our itme concentrating on CO2 emissions rather than other issues, such as the effects of urbanisation. If peole supress and questioning then the issue becomes a religion, where you have to 'believe' rather than a science in which people try to increase their knowledge of meteorology, the metrology used to collect data and the computer programming used to model it. Oh and the statistical methodologies used in their analysis.

Personally I would be much happier if the IPCC produced reports detailing the assumptions and calculations used in their modelling along with the input data. Otherwise, how can a person defend their agreement with AGW properly?

I see no suppression.

I'm not an expert myself but I as I understand it the IPCC doesn't do any original work themselves, they compile information already available. so demonising the IPCC is not a constructive avenue of debate. They produce references of the papers that they base there report on. If you dispute them the only way to be absolutely free from doubt yourself is to mount expeditions to the antarctic and such and start taking measurements yourself. Is the non-publication of all data that goes into making a scientific report unique to climatology?

I don't think that questioning is suppressed but I have argued that we should moderate this forum more because I thought that it would lead to more interesting debates. Such as what exactly would the effect of global warming be on an area.

As I said before lives are at stake over this issue.

[Windguy]

When it comes to AGW though Spadlet. By what you are saying if we are going to gamble 200 million lives, we better check to see if the 50,000 to 1 long shot (AGW not happening) will come up (even if we have to be in the middle of AGW with no frozen north pole to prove it's happening).

But fighting AGW has other benefits too. We may be able to ensure WW3 doesn't happen over the last oil resources. Or we may actually have electric vehicles before we have to pay $10 per litre for fuel. We also end the constricting hold OPEC has on us. We also don't have to commit to mining rail processing shipping processing trucking burning for energy.

Here's some basic figures that show where we should get our energy from from now on.
8.01*10^20 J, Estimated global uranium resources for generating electricity 2005.
6.5×10^21 J, the estimated energy contained in the world's natural gas reserves as of 2006
7.4×10^21 J, the estimated energy contained in the world's petroleum reserves as of 2003
2.1×10^22 J, the estimated energy contained in the world's coal reserves as of 2005
3.9×10^22 J, the estimated energy contained in the world's fossil fuel reserves as of 2003
2.2×10^23 J, total global Uranium-238 resources using fast reactor technology.

And now finally

1.5×10^22J, the total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each day

[debs]

I really wish some scientists would say: "Based on all evidence, by year X - A, B and C negative consequences WILL happen, and if they DO NOT happen, we will admit we aren't able to predict the effects or timing of man-made climate change in any meaningful way"

Even as somebody who thinks it's common sense that mans introduction to unprecedented foreign material into the atmosphere would cause some shifting in the natural balance of the earth, I believe many scientists have 'cried wolf' to be listened to by the majority of Americans going about their day-to-day life.

[Windguy]

YouTube - How It All Ends

The video's been updated, virtually showing the 50000 to 1 long shot argument.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by spot1234

I see no suppression.

I'm not an expert myself but I as I understand it the IPCC doesn't do any original work themselves, they compile information already available. so demonising the IPCC is not a constructive avenue of debate. They produce references of the papers that they base there report on. If you dispute them the only way to be absolutely free from doubt yourself is to mount expeditions to the antarctic and such and start taking measurements yourself. Is the non-publication of all data that goes into making a scientific report unique to climatology?

I don't think that questioning is suppressed but I have argued that we should moderate this forum more because I thought that it would lead to more interesting debates. Such as what exactly would the effect of global warming be on an area.

As I said before lives are at stake over this issue.

The IPCC ,the political body,has been caught out at circular citation and are selective in their reporting.There is no need to tell people to go off doing their own research as their are many papers in the public arena detailing research that the IPCC and fellow travelers ignore.Go look for that research,it is there.How can such an incestuous few scientists make proper peer evaluations when their next bit of funding demands on the approval of said peers? it is a discredited organisation and there is no need to demonise it any further,rather it should be sidelined along with all the other UN gravy trains and the real problems facing us dealt with.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by forfismum

The IPCC ,the political body,has been caught out at circular citation and are selective in their reporting.There is no need to tell people to go off doing their own research as their are many papers in the public arena detailing research that the IPCC and fellow travelers ignore.Go look for that research,it is there.How can such an incestuous few scientists make proper peer evaluations when their next bit of funding demands on the approval of said peers? it is a discredited organisation and there is no need to demonise it any further,rather it should be sidelined along with all the other UN gravy trains and the real problems facing us dealt with.

Why is the north pole melting?

I see ocean acidification, disruption in weather patterns, sea level rises etc, etc as real problems.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by spot1234

Why is the north pole melting?

Because Al Gore said it would.

I see ocean acidification, disruption in weather patterns, sea level rises etc, etc as real problems.

Been happening for billions of years. Sea levels? it will take quite a while yet for them to reach where they were just a mere 15k years ago at one of my research locations.
Weather disruption ? 1947,now there was a good year for disruption.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Because Al Gore said it would.

to be fair thats not really an answer

Originally Posted by forfismum

Been happening for billions of years. Sea levels? it will take quite a while yet for them to reach where they were just a mere 15k years ago at one of my research locations.
Weather disruption ? 1947,now there was a good year for disruption.

I'm not really confident that you know what your talking about. I don't either to be fair but I am interested in what other people have to say on the matter.
We are not getting as much snow as we used to In the UK, why is that?

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by spot1234

I see no suppression.

CHECKOUT



For Melting of Arctic CHECKOUT