Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

If charts used for Okie's temperatures are figured out by models

and

models are used for global warming predictions, then, if we must accept Okie's chart then we must accept the models used for global warming predictions.

I see no problem with that approach. I posted the IPCC 6 scenarios which USED MODELS. However,it is simplistic in the extreme to compare the chart referenced by Okie with the IPCC's models since the inputs and parameters used in each case are DIFFERENT!

It wasn't intended to convince you of anything JTT. The purpose of that video was to illustrate how much we have benefitted from using fossil fuels to become prosperous and we are here, we are healthy, and we are well....prosperous; and so far there are no obvious negative results from our involvement with a substance that is as natural as the oxygen we breathe.

Those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear will also realize the folly of denying those who are not yet prosperous the same ability to prosper that we have enjoyed.

These shining examples of science are exactly what has brought me over to your side, Foxy.

Well something needed to do that. (So I'll just humor you re all the science in that video though I didn't see any there myself.)

If you want to see the results of the IPCC's work, JTT, go toWIKIPEDIA. They have the complete results of the survey completed in 2007. The most stunning finding is that the Sea Level Rise which they predicted twenty years ago has been revised downwards. Isn't that interesting?

The consensus on global warming is alive and well, and still the consensus, and thinks we'd better start getting our asses in gear:


Global warming seen worse than predicted

A general view shows chimneys from a cement plant in Baokang
By Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters
Sat Feb 14, 4:46 PM EST
The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.

"The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously," Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.

Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007."

He said recent climate studies suggested the continued warming of the planet from greenhouse gas emissions could touch off large, destructive wildfires in tropical rain forests and melt permafrost in the Arctic tundra, releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gasses that could raise global temperatures even more.

"There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years," Field, of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science, said in a statement.

He pointed to recent studies showing the fourth assessment report underestimated the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years.

"We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge surge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said.

He said that trend was likely to continue if more countries turned to coal and other carbon-intensive fuels to meet their energy needs. If so, he said the impact of climate change would be "more serious and diverse" than the IPCC's most recent predictions.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

Some think global warming is a hoax, Monterey Jack

Note:




THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX


The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.

There are not a lot of individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those that support global warming the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right this and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically sounded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).

The dates that you see by each headline are the date when it was posted here. If you know if a news story, research, or information that should be posted here, please let us know what it is and please provide us with a link. The articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are provided to them, by year, at the bottom of this page.


13 Feb 2009 - Australia/California Fires Have Even More Similarities [When the California fires started the cult of global warming started screaming it was due to global warming. Then the facts came out that it was all arson. Now we see the same thing going on in Australia. Makes one wonder!]

13 Feb 2009 - A Load Of Hot Air [YouTube video]

12 Feb 2009 - When Did His Official Title Change To 'Honorable'? [More feeding of the ego of the arrogant leader of the cult of global warming!]

10 Feb 2009 - Associated Press Report On Global Warming Is "Propaganda"

10 Feb 2009 - 2008: The Year Man-Made Global Warming Hysteria Was Sunk By An Iceberg

10 Feb 2009 - My Confrontation With A Global Warming Climate Change Activist

09 Feb 2009 - The Great Global Warming Hoax: Who Is To Blame?

09 Feb 2009 - GORE LIED: Save The Children (From Global Warming Propaganda)

09 Feb 2009 - Radiational Cooling Trumps Greenhouse CO2 Every Time

09 Feb 2009 - Antarctic Sea Ice Up 35% On 1979 Levels

09 Feb 2009 - Reining In The "Pale Horse" Of The Theocratic Fundamentalist Greenies

06 Feb 2009 - More Science Fiction From The Global Warming Cult

06 Feb 2009 - Myth Blaster: Further Evidence To Debunk Global Warming Hoax

06 Feb 2009 - Heartland's "Scare" Video Online: Promotes Climate Conference [Has an embedded video on the web page]

06 Feb 2009 - Scare ["Scare," a two-minute video highlighting the scare tactics of global-warming alarmists, has made its debut on the Internet.] [YouTube video]

06 Feb 2009 - Ganahl Debunks The Global Warming Hoax

06 Feb 2009 - Facts Leave Global Warming Proponents Out In The Cold

06 Feb 2009 - Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Feb. 6th 2009

04 Feb 2009 - 200 New Species Found. Global Warming To Blame? [According to the global warming cult, global warming is suppose to be making more species become extinct. How do they explain new species being found? This is just another fact that goes against what they teach and believe. More proof that they are just a cult!!!]

04 Feb 2009 - The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

03 Feb 2009 - Global-Warming Alarmist Advocates Abortion: U.S. Population Expert Calls Hyped-Up Report An 'Economic Death Warrant.'

03 Feb 2009 - NASA Is Censoring Global Warming Skeptics [They don't want anyone exposing the lies of the global warming cult!]

02 Feb 2009 - Czech President Vaclav Klaus Dares Tell The Emperor He Is Wearing No Clothes! [Good for him!!!]

02 Feb 2009 - More Medicine For The Global Warming Cult

02 Feb 2009 - Some Harsh Words About Global Warming Forecasts

02 Feb 2009 - Vaclav Klaus Takes Another Swing At Global Warming Sham

30 Jan 2009 - Oval Office Hypocrisy

30 Jan 2009 - Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore Over Global Warming Campaign: John Coleman, Now A Weatherman At San Diego's KUSI, Writes On His Station's Web Site That Al Gore Is Ignoring The Faulty Research Behind Global Warming

30 Jan 2009 - It Is Snowing On Al Gore

29 Jan 2009 - The History Of The Global Warming Scam [This is a must read!!]

29 Jan 2009 - Gore Warns Of Damage From Climate Change [More lies from the cult of global warming! It's obvious, even to a blind man, that global warming is a lie. Just look at how three quarters of the country is now in a deep freeze. This is completely contradictory to the teachings of the cult of global warming!]

28 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Cult Caught Lying...Again

28 Jan 2009 - Big Storm Coats Nation With Ice, Snow [So whatever happened to the so-called global warming??? More proof that it was nothing but a LIE!!!]

27 Jan 2009 - AP Finally Sees The Carbon Credit Scam [FANTASTIC NEWS!!! The eyes of the people are finally opening up to the truth!]

27 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Is Already Irreversible [As with all cults, the cult of global warming changes it teachings and beliefs form time to time, so they can adjust them for what is really going on or what they want people to believe]

27 Jan 2009 - Hey Al. Your Slip Is Showing: Global Warming Last In Poll [There is also an embedded video on the web page]

27 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Debunked Again

27 Jan 2009 - A Visualization Of The Urban Legend Called, Man Made Global Warming

27 Jan 2009 - Well There's Yer Problem: Oil Drilling Off Santa Barbara Coast [The Democrats are showing their same old obstructionist ways. Even the environmentalists are for expanded drilling. The oil just bubbles up from the bottom of the ocean in Santa Barbara.]

26 Jan 2009 - Climate: Change You Can't Believe In

26 Jan 2009 - Six Most Embarrassing Moments In Environmentalism

26 Jan 2009 - Earth Climate Update - Brrrr!

23 Jan 2009 - Climate Change Fraud: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan. 23, 2009

23 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Based On Phony Science

23 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Hoax

22 Jan 2009 - Lourdes College Blog Center: Global Warming Is A Hoax

22 Jan 2009 - Another Global Warming Nut-Case [PURE LUNACY!]

22 Jan 2009 - Ethanol Brought Down Flight 1549 [What? You Say Jets Don't Burn Ethanol? Well, Time Magazine Is Trying To Blame Global Warming, And They Don't Burn That Either. I Think There's A Better Argument For Ethanol]

22 Jan 2008 - Gloom And Doom Over Climate Change 'Silly'

21 Jan 2009 - Let's All Do Our Part To Add To Global Warming

21 Jan 2009 - Blowing Holes In The Global Warming Hoax

21 Jan 2009 - Inconvenient Truth Reducing CO2 Emissions

21 Jan 2009 - Many Arrive By Private Jets To Inauguration

20 Jan 2009 - Anxiety Grows In Global Warming Alarmist Camp [People are waking up to the fact that global warming was nothing but a LIE!!!]

20 Jan 2009 - Icy Depiction Of Gore Unveiled By Critic In Alaska

16 Jan 2009 - Burning Bodies For Enviro-Friendly Heat [Are they for real? If so, and this isn't some hoax, this is totally INSANE!!! What's next, environmentally friendly crackers made from people like in the movie "Soylent Green"?]

16 Jan 2009 - Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age: Some Things Never Change. It's Still About Control And Money [They pulled this same scare back in the 1970's and were saying that my 1985 there would be world-wide glaciation. Well guess what? It never happened! More of the scare tactics and panic creating like they tried to pull with Y2K and global warming!]

16 Jan 2009 - Methane On Mars? Better Call Al

15 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Finally Hurting The Ski Industry [Gee seems the lies of the Cult of Global Warming are being exposed by nature itself]

14 Jan 2009 - Another Dissenter: U.S. Naval Academy Chemist Slams Climate Fears As `Imaginary Boogeyman`

13 Jan 2009 - Sharp Cold Wave Shocks Upper Midwest, Temps To -36 [More proof that global warming is a load of rubbish!]

13 Jan 2009 - AP: Hybrids Don't Add Up

13 Jan 2009 - Obama's New Climate Czar Beloved By Socialists

12 Jan 2009 - CO2 Fairytales In Global Warming

12 Jan 2009 - Al Gore's Global Warming Propaganda Creates Fear - But Also Big Laughter

12 Jan 2009 - Those Who Want To Save The Planet Are Killing It

12 Jan 2009 - Hidden Harm Of Google Searches [More NONSENSE and INSANITY from the Cult of Global Warming!!!]

12 Jan 2009 - The Ice Age Cometh: More Evidence [So what happened to everything warming up?] [Has an embedded video on the web page]

12 Jan 2009 - Earth On The Brink Of An Ice Age [Seems like I heard this one before back in the 1970's before they started the garbage with the so-called global warming!]

12 Jan 2009 - The Global Warming Crescendo Has Passed

09 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Hoax & The Myth Of Scientific Consensus

07 Jan 2009 - Expect More Gore

07 Jan 2009 - The Clinton Gore Connection Uncovered [Has an embedded video on the web page]

07 Jan 2009 - Barack Obama And The Threat That Isn't There

07 Jan 2009 - Dr. James Hansen: Unethically Manipulating The Data (Global Warming Junk Science)

06 Jan 2009 - What Global Warming: Most Sea Ice On Record

06 Jan 2009 - Global Warming Nannies Have Upped The Ante

05 Jan 2009 - The Plain Truth About Glorious Carbon Dioxide

05 Jan 2009 - Environment Minister Sammy Wilson: I Still Think Man-Made Climate Change Is A Con

02 Jan 2009 - CO2, Polar Bears, And Volcanoes [Has an embedded video on the web page]

02 Jan 2009 - Nobel Idiot: El Nino Linked To AGW

02 Jan 2009 - Dr. James Hansen Admits The True Goal Of Global Warming Alarmists: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth

end of quote-

But, Montery Jack, as I am sure you know,posters on both sides of the controversy will continue to post and post and post.

I do think that a very important conference will occur on "global warming" in December 2009. I will be here to comment on that conference. I am going to predict with PERFECT CONFIDENCE that two of the biggest alleged polluters in the world, China and India, are going to be asked to spend Billions while reducing their industrial output. They are going to tell the assembled group--No, sorry, we are DEVELOPING countries and, as such, should not be under the kinds of restrictions you are proposing.

I WILL BE HERE TO NOTE THAT THE CONVENTION WILL BE AS MUCH AS AFAILURE AS THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WHICH DID NOTHING TO BRING CHINA AND INDIA ON BOARD.

If you know your climate conventions history and the Kyoto Results, you know that the Kyoto Protocol was a miserable failure.

Why on earth should that have happened when the leftwing scientists in Europe were preaching irremediable disaster?

Because, the leaders in those countries pressed for industrial development and did not really believe the claims of the hysterics.

New inventions to lessen countries dependence on the Mullahs? Of course,but the reason isn't the alleged global warming--=It is Economics.

http://www.wnho.net/

Remember, Monterey Jack, some think global warming is a hoax.

You gonna join the World Natural Health Orghanization in their courageous pro-life crusade to stop government regulation of herbal products, genoves? I can really see clearly how that gives them expertise in climate science, can't you? For the sarca;sm-challenged, that is sarcasm. Genoves finds yet another bunch of loonies to idolize.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

I have other organization I can reference. But, like most lefties who try to ignore the substance of a post, why don't you respond to my prediction that the 2009 conference in December will not lead to world wide agreement on reductions? Are you frightened to address that topic? Or is it just that you cannot address it?

Thanks, Ican--May I suggest another source which I am sure you will enjoy? If youhave't already referenced it--"Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1,500 years"

Montery Jack writes as if there are only a few organizations and scientists who think Global Warming is highly exaggerated.

I wonder who Setanta referenced-- He does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that global warming is caused entirely by c02 emissions.

Have you followed his posts on the subject?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html

Yes, this Stanford based group is one of the more consistent AGW advocates out there. The problem with this group is that almost all of its funding comes from AGW advocates which, while not in any way making whatever research and conclusions null and void, that does raise the red flag of possible bias or incentive to reach a particular conclusion:





So how is this any different from some of the AGW skeptics who work for institutions who have accepted funding from the oil companies? If all or MOST of their funding came from energy sources opposed by the AGW advocates, I think that should raise eyebrows. However, most of their funding does not come from energy sources opposed by the AGW advocates, and further, the energy companies don't CARE all that much. The really dumb energy policies coming out of the Bush administration, for instance, put some mandates on energy production that the oil companies were more than happy to comply with. Some of that stuff was pretty lucrative for them however inefficient and ineffective and expensive it would be for the consumers. If the government wants them to do it in the most inefficient and ineffective way, they don't care. They just raise their prices to cover the extra cost and do it.

I would lay odds that if I had enough money to put into a grant with some prestigious organization, I would be able to find scientists who would do the research with the conclusion that I was the most beautiful, capable, and intelligent woman in the world. If you have enough money or power, you can very often control the message.

You realize it in your saner moments, but normally, you forget it completely, Foxfyre.

I follow the global warming controversy quite closely, hawkeye 10. I cannot find any studies which prompted Christopher Field's comments. Do you have a link? I am, of course, aware that the major player in these scientific studies is the IPCC, sponsored by the UN. I have clear evidence to show that the IPCC's reports in 2007 showed a REVISION DOWNWARDS of Sea Level Rise.

If the IPCC revised their predictions from their previous studies, it is not at all unlikely that there may be revisions in the future.

Note:

I follow the global warming controversy quite closely, hawkeye 10. I cannot find any studies which prompted Christopher Field's comments. Do you have a link? I am, of course, aware that the major player in these scientific studies is the IPCC, sponsored by the UN. I have clear evidence to show that the IPCC's reports in 2007 showed a REVISION DOWNWARDS of Sea Level Rise.

If the IPCC revised their predictions from their previous studies, it is not at all unlikely that there may be revisions in the future.

Note:

Re: genoves (Post 3566480)
3. Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************


There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)



4. An examination of the IPCC findings shows that the MEDIAN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE( SEE SCENARIO B2 AND A1B) AND TAKE THE MID POINT BETWEEN THEM--2.6 C. rise by 2100.

It is most important to understand that the IPCC HAS REVISED ITS FINDINGS OVER AND OVER. THESE FIGURES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND SINCE THEY ARE FINDINGS MADE THROUGH MODELING CAN SHOW DIFFERENCES.

Let us examine what the IPCC has said about Sea Level Rises---

In its report the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century..since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot--no major disruptions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE NEW PREDICTION IS L O W E R THAN THE PREVIOUS IPCC ESTIMATES AND MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATES FROM 1990 OF MORE THAN TWO FEET AND FROMTHE 1980'S WHEN THE EPA PROJECTED MORE THAN SIX FEET BY 2 100.

Keep in mind what those scenarios represent. Tgey are based on various degrees of mitigation of anthropogenically produced greenhouse gases BELOW THE PRESENT RATE AND BELOW THE PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE IN THE RATE OF EMISSIONS SINCE 1990. Since we have not in fact reduced the rate of increase, nor dropped below the 1990 exmissions, we are well up in the top scenarios, not the lower or middle ones. Rule out only a foot rise.

genoves, you want to try to document that EPA six foot rise projection? No one, including the EPA, seems to talk about it. And you might also try to verify your contention that the IPCC keeps revising its projectiond down each time they come out with a new report. They've been saying about the same thing as today since at least 2001, (Wikipedia says within +/- 10%). If you looks at the graphs from C"Climate Change 2001" they're virtually identical. Their first report was kind of provisional. The only thing from that that's easily findable online today, is the "business as usual" sceanrio of 65 cm. If you will remember, "business as usual" meant fossil fuel use was going to keep increasing at or above the rate it had been as more countries developed and usage kept rising. That meant it was a high-end scenario. In the FAR that would put it comparably in the 26-59 cm scenario, so , yes, it was a bit higher than that. So what? It was 20 years ago, when they knew a lot less. And you might also remember that the IPCC has said that ice flow looks to be higher than it has been thought to be and recent research shows as we learn more about it it seems more likely to be higher than we
ve thought, so they flat out didn't calculate it and said that the upper bounds in their sceanrios are not to be thought of as the last word--i.e. they may very well be higher when the uncertainties are resolved, so that 65 cim may turn out to be a low extimate after all.

So basically, as knowledge has increased exponentially, as the models have gotten much more complete, as the data have increased dramatically, the estimates are staying the same.

And a median, or the average, value isn't particularly relevant really, because we're not following an emissions path that would lead us to something that low.

With the huge downturn in the world economy, does it mean greenhouse gas production is also down?