Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

Liverpool said:
"There is no debate, the science is in and is final", they said :spin :hihi


We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed "the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux"

The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".

The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet".

After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.

"Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting," it said in a statement.

The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the "summary for policymakers" to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming "pause", with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.

Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.

Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. "Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm," he said


- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.60B50w0Q.dpuf

Classic Murdoch piece. Naysayer reads the headline, 'yeah I knew it, bloody chardonnay socialists full of sh!t'. Thing is, if the publication wasn't pushing an agenda, the headline would read something like 'climate may not be warming as fast as we thought', and even that is a stretch.

The specifics of the predictions are, by definition, always dicey, the broad trend and science remains. Its scandalous that an out-of-touch, conflicted powerful individual can relentlessly obfuscate, it has and will have very real impacts on the future of the planet. It makes me sad, angry and frustrated.
 
tigersnake said:
Classic Murdoch piece. Naysayer reads the headline, 'yeah I knew it, bloody chardonnay socialists full of sh!t'. Thing is, if the publication wasn't pushing an agenda, the headline would read something like 'climate may not be warming as fast as we thought', and even that is a stretch.

The specifics of the predictions are, by definition, always dicey, the broad trend and science remains. Its scandalous that an out-of-touch, conflicted powerful individual can relentlessly obfuscate, it has and will have very real impacts on the future of the planet. It makes me sad, angry and frustrated.

"The specifics of the predictions are, by definition, always dicey." Really, first time I have heard that definition.

If they so dicy, why make them? Why not stick to the 'broad trends'?

I love how even the models being wrong is Murdoch's fault. What a laugh.

The arctic ice is growing at a record rate! The rate of warming is not what was predicted.

You need to start dealing with it, you are in denial - hence the anger and frustration. It should be a relief, we may not be doomed!!
 
Merveille said:
"The specifics of the predictions are, by definition, always dicey." Really, first time I have heard that definition.

If they so dicy, why make them? Why not stick to the 'broad trends'?

I love how even the models being wrong is Murdoch's fault. What a laugh.

The arctic ice is growing at a record rate! The rate of warming is not what was predicted.

You need to start dealing with it, you are in denial - hence the anger and frustration. It should be a relief, we may not be doomed!!

the report says the ICCC report will still say: climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

seems pretty clear to me.
 
Sorry but it is one of longest standing *smile* yous to scientific journalism that this paper continues to publish his often deliberately false proselytizing under the imprimatur of science. He is constantly rebuffed on Media Watch for glaring inaccuracies. Yet again the climate deniers are forced to the shadows to find any support for their untenable position.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
Sorry but it is one of longest standing *smile* yous to scientific journalism that this paper continues to publish his often deliberately false proselytizing under the imprimatur of science. He is constantly rebuffed on Media Watch for glaring inaccuracies. Yet again the climate deniers are forced to the shadows to find any support for their untenable position.

...'constantly rebuffed on Media Watch...'

oh well, then that does it for me, you win.... :rofl

Don't worry about addressing what might be in the report, which does not assist the faith of the true believers! Who are now are fitting the title of 'deniers' themselves - the irony is unbelieveable..
 
Liverpool said:
You lot changing your tune at last because the IPCC are backtracking? :spin....an example of the pedestal-standing that has been going on here:

Pray tell, what does pedestal-standing mean?
 
Merveille said:
...'constantly rebuffed on Media Watch...'

oh well, then that does it for me, you win.... :rofl

Don't worry about addressing what might be in the report, which does not assist the faith of the true believers! Who are now are fitting the title of 'deniers' themselves - the irony is unbelieveable..

again, this is what is thought to be in the report:

Brodders17 said:
climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

any response to that?
 
Merveille said:
...'constantly rebuffed on Media Watch...'
Finish the quote Merv, after the ellipsis came "for glaring inaccuracies" that was the important bit. Facts son. The author of the article constantly forgets that newspapers and especially scientific journalism ought to be acquainted with them. He has no credibility.

Don't worry about addressing what might be in the report, which does not assist the faith of the true believers! Who are now are fitting the title of 'deniers' themselves - the irony is unbelieveable..

Feel free to post a link to the report to back your claims. So far we have only the interpretation backed by no evidence of a known fabricator with years of form supported by The Daily Mail which itself was responsible for one of the best known hashes of misintepreted data in this debate.
 
Freezer said:
Reckon that island would be pretty full.

Population 100,000, all destined for relocation, and this is just the start. Some people are happy to stick their head in the sand while others struggle to keep their patch of sand - good luck stopping the boats Australia.
 
Tony Abbott will doom future generations if he ditches carbon tax

David Suzuki

Watch Force of Nature - Iconic scientist and thinker David Suzuki argues that we have exhausted the limits of the biosphere and it is imperative that we re-think our relationship with the natural world.

A quarter of a century ago, I asked Canada's bright, new environment minister Lucien Bouchard what he felt was the most important environment issue facing Canadians. ''Global warming,'' he immediately replied. ''It threatens the survival of our species. We have to act now.''

Back then his views echoed those of politicians around the world. George H.W. Bush, who didn't have an environmental bone in his body, promised to be an ''environmental president'' when he ran in 1988 because Americans had put it at the top of their concerns. Even Margaret Thatcher, when she was filmed picking up litter, turned to the camera to say, ''I'm a greenie too''.
'This unprecedented event is unlike anything recorded in North American history.'

"This event is unlike anything recorded in North American history." Photo: Nicolas Walker

But now, Bouchard and politicians around the world continue to retreat from the battle to protect the environment. Your new prime minister Tony Abbott is just another who finds it easier and more politically rewarding to focus on the next election cycle rather than the mountain of evidence that continues to grow and show we are trashing the biosphere and must reduce carbon emissions.
Advertisement

I used to think some cataclysmic, climate-related event would shock the world into taking the steps needed to preserve the future of the human species. But after seeing what's happened this past decade, I'm no longer sure any event or set of circumstances will be enough to jolt governments into action. (The 2008 bank-induced economic meltdown spurred politicians to spend hundreds of billions just to get the defective economy back up and running again!)

Just look at Canada.
"Your new prime minister Tony Abbott is just another who finds it easier and more politically rewarding to focus on the next election cycle".

"Your new prime minister Tony Abbott is just another who finds it easier and more politically rewarding to focus on the next election cycle." Photo: AFP

In British Columbia, where I live, a warming climate has allowed insects the size of grains of rice to destroy $65 billion worth of pine trees in just a bit over a decade. For millennia the mountain pine beetle, a native of Canada, has been kept in check by our winter temperatures which reach minus 35 degrees for several days.

Not anymore. The British Columbia Ministry of Forests says that, thanks to global warming, we have not had one of these widespread weather events in the British Columbia interior since the winter of 1995-96.

With no more killing freezes, pine beetle numbers have exploded, destroying 710 million cubic metres of commercially valuable pine timber. That's more than half of all such pine in the province. As the climate warms, the beetles have been blown over the Rocky Mountains where pine trees of the boreal forest extend across Canada.

This unprecedented event is unlike anything recorded in North American history, but it's not been enough to galvanise our government to get serious about acting on climate change.

I'm at a loss to understand why. But if the melting polar ice cap, and the devastation wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Sandy was not enough to force governments into serious action, I guess I can hardly expect a little mountain pine beetle to do it.

From what I can see, it's a similar story in Australia. Half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has disappeared in the past 27 years and its size could halve again in the next decade with degradation of the environment and the increasing frequency of cyclones.

Bushfires in Australia are getting more severe and more frequent. I see in Sydney you have already had your first fires barely a week into spring. And what has your new government done in response? As soon as Mr Abbott won power, he promised to wind back Australia's recent efforts to combat global warming.

His promise to scrap the carbon tax, a tax which had been a timid step in the right direction, to close down your green energy bank and to reduce the rebates for buying solar panels, all send a terrible signal to your entrepreneurs and to the community.

And all of it is being done in the name of saving the economy.

But for more than 20 years the insurance industry has been telling us we have all been paying more for changes in the climate. Why aren't we listening to the insurers, the hardest business heads of all?

I would have thought Australia would be leading the world in developing a new economy because climate change is going to devastate Australia.

Instead, mining magnates are manipulating the debate in Australia just like they are doing elsewhere. Like the tobacco industry before them, they have known for years that climate change is happening and that burning fossil fuels is at the heart of it. But to maximise their profits they have continued to sow misunderstanding and confusion, funding the sceptics to perpetrate the myth that global warming is junk science.

They should be ignored because there is no confusion in the scientific community about what's happening to our planet and what the future holds unless we change the way we live.

A carbon tax is just one small step to encourage companies and individuals to reduce dumping rubbish into the atmosphere.

Don't Australians pay to put their junk into landfill?

The consequences of dumping our junk in the atmosphere are far greater than leaving garbage in the streets so why don't we limit it by making people pay to dump it?

It's the most basic lesson of economics. Anyone who understands and cares about the environment and economics will know ditching the carbon tax is not only crazy, it is absolutely suicidal.

David Suzuki is an award winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. He will speak at a City of Sydney City Talk on Tuesday, September 24, at City Recital Hall, Angel Place.
 
Liverpool said:
"There is no debate, the science is in and is final", they said :spin :hihi


We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007...

*text deleted*

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.60B50w0Q.dpuf


How often does the same "journalist" have to get his facts wrong and demonstrate his inability to be rigourous before those who pay him and those who use him to bolster their argument just give up? I made the point that he was so often wrong that it is an affront to science that he allowed to publish under its auspices and unfortunately for those of you who insist on quoting him, he is wrong again. His lack of judgement and rational thought is exposed again as his source material The Daily Mail has also been consistently wrong when reporting on this issue. Whatever it is he is paid for it in no way resembles scientific journalism.
 
im am sure after reading the report Livers will have little choice but to concede that it is very likely that man is having an effect on global warming.
 
Brodders17 said:
im am sure after reading the report Livers will have little choice but to concede that it is very likely that man is having an effect on global warming.

Fat chance, Livers takes his cues from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monkton.
 
bullus_hit said:
Fat chance, Livers takes his cues from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monkton.

he was taking his cues from the supposed ICCC report last week. it would be inconsistent to change his tune now.
 
Brodders17 said:
he was taking his cues from the supposed ICCC report last week. it would be inconsistent to change his tune now.

He'll just keep reading the trollop dished out by Rupert Murdoch and claim it's one big socialist conspiracy, no amount of information will change his mind.
 
Brodders17 said:
im am sure after reading the report Livers will have little choice but to concede that it is very likely that man is having an effect on global warming.

I don't reckon Liverpool would disagree with you, and that's never been the basis of his arguement.

To what extent, and to what end, is what I think Liverpool would debate.
 
Freezer said:
I don't reckon Liverpool would disagree with you, and that's never been the basis of his arguement.

To what extent, and to what end, is what I think Liverpool would debate.

And that would be based on what particular scientific study?
 
bullus_hit said:
And that would be based on what particular scientific study?

The Journal of Liverpool Posts.

Just saying what I think his point of view would be. How he argues his case is up to him.

On another note, I thought David Suzuki was disappointing the way he presented himself the other night. Came across as a bigshot bully I thought.