Jump to content


Photo

UN latest climate outlook


  • Please log in to reply
619 replies to this topic

#1 idlerboat

idlerboat

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • LocationVictoria, Australia

Posted 04 December 2014 - 07:50 AM

2014 on track to being among hottest on record

The year 2014 is on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, on record, according to preliminary estimates by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This is largely due to record high global sea surface temperatures, which will very likely remain above normal until the end of the year. High sea temperatures, together with other factors, contributed to exceptionally heavy rainfall and floods in many countries and extreme drought in others.

WMO’s provisional statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2014 indicated that the global average air temperature over land and sea surface for January to October was about 0.57° Centigrade (1.03 Fahrenheit) above the average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period, and 0.09°C (0.16 °F) above the average for the past ten years (2004-2013).

If November and December maintain the same tendency, then 2014 will likely be the hottest on record, ahead of 2010, 2005 and 1998. This confirms the underlying long-term warming trend. It is important to note that differences in the rankings of the warmest years are a matter of only a few hundredths of a degree, and that different data sets show slightly different rankings.
  • 0
There is only two substances..stuff and glue...and even glue is made of stuff,,
quote."MD"

#2 SloopJohnB

SloopJohnB

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,175 posts
  • LocationPatumahoe

Posted 04 December 2014 - 09:20 AM

The increase in the world population is a cause.
The human body releases on an average of 100 watts/hr
Attached File  Capture.JPG   73.67KB   87 downloads
  • 0

"With age comes wisdom .... and with wisdom comes the knowing when to avoid perfection!"


#3 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2014 - 04:09 PM

Having a suss last evening and you maybe onto more then you think Sloop. According to Stanford University the population growth is happening a lot quicker than everyone and the models expected. That in itself isn't much but when they looked back there was a population growth spurt at the start of the Medieval Warming period. Again a coincidence maybe but then they had a look at the warmest period (5000-1000BC) there was again a population spurt, quite a lot faster growth than would have been expected. In times that were cold i.e. the mini ice age of 1300-1800 odd, the world population decreases more than average. But the study would suggest the extra growth is around the start of warming periods where the decrease is during the cold periods. Is it possible all those extra human generated watts have some input into warming???? The decrease looks just to be people freezing to death or dieing of hunger as crops don't grow in snow.

Which leads nicely into this bit.

Interestingly the study references quite a few other works (by places like Pricetown Uni and other flash sounding names) that all put forward a case that the warmer the planet is the better it is for the humans on it, to a certain point of course. A quick suss of some of those would suggest if we had a couple of extra degrees there are some very large benefits to be had. A lot would suggest a nice good warm burst would see a huge growth of bottom of the food chain stuff which would lead to that filtering upwards i.e more plankton equals more fish equals more whales equals more Japanese sort of a thing. More CO2 is already resulting in bigger faster growing plants which leads to better food production and so on.

Now I'm left wondering why all, or a lot generally speaking, of that seems to be either squished or in same cases the papers are decried as being 'Climate Deniers'. With a very fast suss one could be excused for thinking there is a lot of good news in a warmer planet that seems to be being covered up or trashed by the doom and gloom brigade. One does wonder why.

As for the headline '2014 on track to being among hottest on record', that's nothing more than a marketing statement. While it's true it's intentionally written in a way to scare people to make them do something, which generally with this subject is pay someone some money. If the headline was written cleaner without scaremongering it would say something like '2014 maybe the hottest we've recorded in the very tiny time frame we've keep records, of which some are very dubious anyway' or '2014 maybe the warmest year on record, which only go back 150 years odd'. They can't say it's the warmest Earth's ever been as it's been a hell pile hotter and was not that long ago. But as they say there is no money in honest headlines and having a suss of the morning paper I sadly think they are right.

It's a interesting subject. Be good to be here in 100 years to find out what the truth is. I still heavily suspect both sides are both right and wrong in places but in which ones and to what degree remains to be seen.
  • 0

#4 Black Panther

Black Panther

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 3,676 posts

Posted 25 February 2015 - 07:17 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...ottom-well&_r=2


  • 1
In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

 


#5 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,128 posts

Posted 25 February 2015 - 09:44 AM

For everyone who says Yes (or No) there is one who says No (or Yes).

 

http://www.forbes.co...enier-research/

 

 

Road tar is more transparent than the 'are humans all it' argument.


  • 0

#6 SloopJohnB

SloopJohnB

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,175 posts
  • LocationPatumahoe

Posted 11 March 2015 - 08:49 AM

The increase in the world population is a cause.
The human body releases on an average of 100 watts/hr
attachicon.gifCapture.JPG

An update 

Attached File  Watts per activity.JPG   86.11KB   0 downloads

 

So after last weekends "round the bays" an extra 7.5 mw of heat was put into the atmosphere.

 

based on

10,000 hard running 6mw

10,000 average running 2.5mw

10,000 walking 2mw

 

If they all stayed home and read books 3mw.

 

:razz:  :razz:  :razz: Attached File  Watts per activity.JPG   86.11KB   0 downloads


  • 0

"With age comes wisdom .... and with wisdom comes the knowing when to avoid perfection!"


#7 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,128 posts

Posted 12 March 2015 - 03:59 PM

A interesting article that, if true and a quick suss suggests there is a lot of fact in it, doesn't bode well for anyone. I went for a suss to see what I could find and below this is a letter from one of the Congressmen to a organisation, and it's response from the organisation.
 
All this sh*t is now so out of hand and bullshit ridden it's going to end badly for a awful lot of people, billions of us, no matter whether we are cooking ourselves or not. Wait until later in the year when they want us 1st worlders to pay 100 billion dollars to developing nations to help stop them polluting. Developing nations like China, India and other doing very nicely Thank you countries.

 

Anyway, the article -
 
Edward Markey (D-MA), other senators and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently sent letters to institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes.
 
The letters allege that the targeted researchers may have “conflicts of interest” or may not have fully disclosed corporate funding sources. They say such researchers may have testified before congressional committees, written articles or spoken at conferences, emphasizing the role of natural forces in climate change, or questioning evidence and computer models that emphasize predominantly human causes.
 
Mr. Grijalva asserts that disclosure of certain information will “establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations” published in the institutions’ names and help Congress make better laws. “Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science.” These conflicts need to be made clear, because members of Congress cannot perform their duties if research or testimony is “influenced by undisclosed financial relationships,” it says.
The targeted institutions are asked to reveal their policies on financial disclosure; drafts of testimony before Congress or agencies; communications regarding testimony preparation; and sources of “external funding,” including consulting and speaking fees, research grants, honoraria, travel expenses and other monies – for any work that questions the manmade climate cataclysm catechism.
 
Conflicts of interest can indeed pose problems. However, it is clearly not only fossil fuel companies that have major financial or other interests in climate and air quality standards – nor only manmade climate change skeptics who can have conflicts and personal, financial or institutional interests in these issues.
 
Renewable energy companies want to perpetuate the mandates, subsidies and climate disruption claims that keep them solvent. Insurance companies want to justify higher rates, to cover costs from allegedly rising seas and more frequent or intense storms. Government agencies seek bigger budgets, more personnel, more power and control, more money for grants to researchers and activist groups that promote their agendas and regulations, and limited oversight, transparency and accountability for their actions. Researchers and organizations funded by these entities naturally want the financing to continue.
You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.
 
Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.
 
The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.
Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.
 
Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever.
In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure.
 
As to the ethics of climate disaster researchers, and the credibility of their models, data and reports, ClimateGate emails reveal that researchers used various “tricks” to mix datasets and “hide the decline” in average global temperatures since 1998; colluded to keep skeptical scientific papers out of peer-reviewed journals; deleted potentially damaging or incriminating emails; and engaged in other practices designed to advance manmade climate change alarms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based many of its most notorious disappearing ice cap, glacier and rainforest claims on student papers, magazine articles, emails and other materials that received no peer review. The IPCC routinely tells its scientists to revise their original studies to reflect Summaries for Policymakers written by politicians and bureaucrats.
 
Yet, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy relies almost entirely on this junk science to justify her agency’s policies – and repeats EPA models and hype on extreme weather, refusing to acknowledge that not one Category 3-5 hurricane has made U.S. landfall for a record 9.3 years. Her former EPA air quality and climate czar John Beale is in prison for fraud, and the agency has conducted numerous illegal air pollution experiments on adults and even children – and then ignored their results in promulgating regulations.
 
Long-time IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has resigned in disgrace, after saying manmade climate change is “my religion, my dharma” (principle of the cosmic order), rather than a matter for honest, quality science and open, robust debate. The scandals go on and on: see here, here, here, here and here.
It’s no wonder support for job and economy-killing carbon taxes and regulations is at rock bottom. And not one bit surprising that alarmists refuse to debate realist scientists: the “skeptics” would eviscerate their computer models, ridiculous climate disaster claims, and “adjusted” or fabricated evidence.
 
Instead, alarmists defame scientists who question their mantra of “dangerous manmade climate change.” The Markey and Grijalva letters “convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease, lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense – and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress,” Professor Lindzen writes. They are “a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming,” says Dr. Soon. Be silent, or perish.
Now the White House is going after Members of Congress! Its new Climate-Change-Deniers website wants citizens to contact and harass senators and congressmen who dare to question its climate diktats.
 
Somehow, though, Markey, Grijalva, et al. have not evinced any interest in investigating any of this. The tactics are as despicable and destructive as the junk science and anti-energy policies of climate alarmism. It is time to reform the IPCC and EPA, and curtail this climate crisis insanity.
 
Written by a Paul Driessen, a author of some books about stuff.
 
############ One of the letters from one of the congressmen
 
From: United States Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works
Date: February 25, 2015
To:
Mr. Joseph Bast
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, Illinois 60606
 
Dear Mr. Bast,
We write to request information about payments made by The Heartland Institute in support of scientific research and scientists, as well as support for other efforts related to climate change, if such payments have been made.
As members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we are interested in understanding how your organization has undertaken such efforts and the degree to which these efforts have been publicly disclosed, particularly in light of recent articles about funding Dr. Willie Soon received from corporations and foundations in support of his work that he failed to disclose when publishing his results.
For the last ten years, please provide the following:
* List of funded research efforts (including but not limited to grants, fellowships, scholarships, consulting contracts, contracts, honoraria, and speaking events) on or related to climate, climate change, global warming, environmental issues, air quality, atmospheric or oceanic topics, greenhouse gas emissions, associated impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide, methane, aerosols, solar radiation, vulnerable animal species or ecosystems, geology, paleoclimatology, meteorology, astrophysics, or heliophysics.
* For each payment made to individuals and/or organizations associated with the funded research efforts listed above, please provide the following information:
1. Name of recipient;
2. Institutional affiliation;
3. Payment amount and duration of the term of the funded research effort;
4. Reason for payment;
5. Copy of the grant and/or contract, including any terms containing restrictions related to the disclosure of the source of the payments; and
6. Deliverables submitted as part of the funded research effort, including any publications, or written materials.
We request that these materials be provided no later than close of business on April 3, 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have questions or concerns, please contact Briana Tomboulian or Michael Freedhoff at 202-224-2742.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey
Barbara Boxer
Sheldon Whitehouse
 
########## The responce

March 10, 2015
Sen. Edward J. Markey, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC 20510-6175
Dear Senators Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse,
I received by email your letter dated February 25 requesting a detailed accounting of The Heartland Institute’s funding of “scientific research and scientists, as well as support for other efforts related to climate change.”
According to a news release posted at Senator Markey’s website, the same letter was sent to 99 other businesses and nonprofit organizations as part of a campaign to stigmatize and demonize those who question the alarmist claims of Greenpeace and other far-left groups in the environmental debate.
So first, shame on you for abusing your public office in an attempt to silence public debate on such an important public policy topic. I am grateful that a majority of members on the Committee on Environment and Public Works has strongly condemned your views and tactics.
Second, you repeat the vicious libel that Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon failed to disclose funding for his work. Are you not aware that neither his employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, nor the journal that published the scholarly article in question, Science Bulletin, has found Dr. Soon violated any of their rules or disclosure policies? Who asked you to repeat that lie?
Third, I am very proud to report that The Heartland Institute has spent millions of dollars over the past ten years supporting scientific research that contradicts alarmist claims about climate change. The New York Times calls us “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.” The Times is not a credible source on this topic, but you three probably find it persuasive.
Fourth and finally, all the information you need about our funding and programs can be found in our annual tax returns or at one of the following websites: heartland.org, heartland.org/issues/environment, climatechangereconsidered.org, and heartland.org/reply-to-critics.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute


  • 0

#8 Beccara

Beccara

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationWhangarei

Posted 13 March 2015 - 06:13 PM

In many circles the debate on man-made or not has been a distraction since the start, The climate is changing and thats going to have a horrific impact on all of humanity if nothing changes, we are all used to what happens now and In Northland my home has no insulation and I have no cold weather clothing apart from the odd thing just in case, Should this change I will personally be up for a large amount of cash - If it warms I will need to pay more for power and air con, if it get's more storms then I will have to pay for storm proof shelter, if it rains more i will have to pay to ensure the land wont rip away from the hill i live on.

 

This is the same for people the world over, Changes in the climate will break the inflexible and those who try to bend nature to their will


  • 0

#9 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,128 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:06 AM

More biffo and WTF in response to the, what appears somewhat rouge. Senators above. The below letter is from the other Senators.

 

#################################

 

February 27, 2015

Joseph Bast

Chief Executive Officer

Heartland Institute

Charter One Bank, 1 South Wacker Drive #2740

Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Bast:

We write in regards to the recent request for information on your support of scientific research initiated by several of our colleagues in the United States Congress. At the outset, we are deeply concerned the letter calls into question the importance of scientific discovery and academic freedom. Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry.

Federal government-sponsored research is good and necessary, but such funding has limits. The federal government does not have a monopoly on funding high-quality scientific research, and many of the nation’s environmental laws require decisions be based on the best scientific information available—not just federally funded research. At the core of American ingenuity are those researchers who challenge the status quo whether in matters of climate, economics, medicine, or any field of study. Institutions of higher-learning and non-govermnetal funding are vital to facilitating such research and scientific inquiry. Limiting research and science to only those who receive federal government resources would undermine and slow American education, economic prosperity, and technological advancement. 

The credibility of a scientific finding, research paper, report, or advancement should be weighed on its compliance with the scientific method and ability to meet the principles of sound science; in short, it should be weighed on its merits. The scientific method is a process marked by skepticism and testing, rather than dogma. If the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings then it is sound, irrespective of funding sources. Science the federal government uses to support regulatory decisions should also comply with the integrity, quality, and transparency requirements under the Information Quality Act and Office of Management and Budget Guidelines.

Indeed, science is only one criterion we must take into consideration when developing laws and regulations. Credible deliberation requires thoughtful analysis and an understanding of the economy, policy, and legal framework in which we function. Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.

The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate effort to challenge these well-accepted truths. We ask you not to be afraid of political reprecussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond. Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.

Sincerely,

James Inhofe

Chairman

David Vitter

United States Senator

John Barrasso

United States Senator

Shelley Moore Capito

United States Senator

Mike Crapo

United States Senator

John Boozman

United States Senator

Jeff Sessions

United States Senator

Roger F. Wicker

United States Senator

Deb Fischer

United States Senator

Mike Rounds

United States Senator

Dan Sullivan

United States Senator

 

#####################################

 

Heartlands response

 

March 10, 2015

Sen. James Inhofe, Sen. John Barrasso, Sen. Mike Crapo, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sen. Deb Fischer, Sen. Dan Sullivan, Sen. David Vitter, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Sen. John Boozman, Sen. Rodger F. Wicker, and Sen. Mike Rounds

United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC 20510-6175

Dear Senators,

Thank you!

On behalf of the Board of Directors of The Heartland Institute, my staff, our thousands of financial supporters, and the hundreds of climate scientists we work with, I express our heart-felt gratitude for your letter dated February 27.

In your letter you criticize a threatening letter sent to us (and apparently 99 other business and nonprofit organizations that participate in the debate over climate change) by Senators Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse. You describe how policymakers must respect the scientific method and tolerate dissenting opinions and you end with these wonderful words:

The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate effort to challenge these well-accepted truths. We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond. Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.

I was emboldened by your letter to reply today to the three Senators, saying we do not intend to provide any more information than what is publicly available in our annual tax returns and on our websites. A copy of my letter is enclosed.

According to The New York Times, The Economist, and other sources, Heartland is the most prominent think tank in the world supporting critical research and commentary on the causes and consequences of climate change. We have hosted nine International Conferences on Climate Change attracting nearly 5,000 people including leading scientists, elected officials, and civic and business leaders from around the world. The next conference takes place in Washington DC on June 11-12; I hope you or members of your staff can attend.

We also publish, for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a series of science reports titled Climate Change Reconsidered. These massive volumes cite thousands of peer-reviewed articles pointing to some key findings:

■ There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.

■ Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.

■ Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.

■ The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.

Here is what this means for public policy:

■ There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.

■ It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.

■ Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.

In the coming months and years, I hope my staff can work with you and your staffs to fashion a pro-environment, pro-energy, and pro-freedom agenda that reflects the real science and economics of climate change. A short summary of our ideas along these lines is enclosed.

Finally and on a more personal note, before his death in 2011, Heartland’s founder Dave Padden often told me libertarian organizations must be “cleaner than Caesar’s wife,” since they are subject to a higher level of scrutiny than others. With this wise advice in mind, over the past 31 years I’ve tried to dot every “i” and cross every “t” to ensure we are in full compliance with the government rules that apply to us. 

Even our strongest critics know we are sincere and honest... in part because one of them, Peter Gleick, stole our confidential budget documents in 2012 and then shared them widely with his liberal allies. Gleick, by the way, confessed to this crime, yet the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute him. (You can read all about this at www.fakegate.org.)

Thank you again for coming to our defense. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Heartland’s government relations director, John Nothdurft, at 312/377-4000 or by email at jbast@heartland.org or jnothdurft@heartland.org, if we can be of any assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute

 

 

 

 

Not too sure what it tells us but it's interesting reading for a shitty day.

 


  • 0

#10 Black Panther

Black Panther

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 3,676 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 11:49 AM

Heartland Institute = Koch Brothers. Nuff said.


  • 0
In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users