E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWarming has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation since 1950, the U.N. climate panel warned in a report Wednesday.
"It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale," the scientists wrote.
Some populations are already living on the edge of disaster, given the projected increases in the magnitude or frequency of some extreme events in many regions, the report stated.
"Small increases in climate extremes above thresholds or regional infrastructure 'tipping points' have the potential to result in large increases in damages to all forms of existing infrastructure," the experts said.
In the past, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has focused on the gradual rise of temperatures and oceans. This report is the first to look at less common but far more noticeable extreme weather changes, which lately have been costing on average about $80 billion a year in damage.
The study forecasts that some tropical cyclones -- which include hurricanes in the United States -- will be stronger, while the frequency might diminish.
"Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins," the experts stated. "It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged."
Some other specific changes in severe weather that the scientists said they had the most confidence in predicting include more heat waves and record hot temperatures worldwide and increased downpours in Alaska, Canada, northern and central Europe, East Africa and north Asia.
"We mostly experience weather and climate through the extreme," said one of the report's top editors, Chris Field, an ecologist with the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "That's where we have the losses. That's where we have the insurance payments. That's where things have the potential to fall apart.
Read the full report from the IPCC
"There are lots of places that are already marginal for one reason or another," Field said. But it's not just poor areas: "There is disaster risk almost everywhere."
At 592 pages long, the report elaborates on a summary of findings released last November.
The report specifically points to New Orleans during 2005's Hurricane Katrina, noting that "developed countries also suffer severe disasters because of social vulnerability and inadequate disaster protection."
In coastal areas of the United States, property damage from hurricanes and rising seas could increase by 20 percent by 2030, the report said. And in parts of Texas, the area vulnerable to storm surge could more than double by 2080.
Already, U.S. insured losses from weather disasters have soared from an average of about $3 billion a year in the 1980s to about $20 billion a year in the last decade, even after adjusting for inflation, said Mark Way, director of sustainability at insurance giant Swiss Re. Last year that total rose to $35 billion, but much of that was from tornadoes, which scientists are unable to connect with global warming. U.S. insured losses are just a fraction of the overall damage from weather disasters each year.
The scientists say that some places, particularly parts of Mumbai in India, could become uninhabitable from floods, storms and rising seas. In 2005, over 24 hours nearly 3 feet of rain fell on the city, killing more than 1,000 people and causing massive damage. Roughly 2.7 million people live in areas at risk of flooding.
The IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts around climate change.
Since then, the IPCC has also come under fire from those questioning whether warming can be attributed to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Critics found a flawed analysis of Himalayan glacier melt, and a few other questionable data, but overall the thousands of pages of IPCC documents have stood the test of scientific review.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Teen rescued after 28 days adrift at sea
- Grumble, grumble: Brits revel in gloom ahead of Olympics
- Afghan abuse victims jailed over 'moral crimes'
- Man cuts off foot, throws it in furnace to avoid job assignment
- Turmoil builds in China's Tibetan regions
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
And wait for it......................
Climate change deniers start now!
You are a dollar late and a penny short. It started a long time ago.
1. Arctic sea ice coverage has returned to NORMAL ranges and is still INCREASING... http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
2. Data references for Greenland ice levels:
A. The latest - Rutgers University keeps track of snow cover around the world. Their data show as slight, but steadily increasing snow cover in Greenland since 1966. See graphs for the northern hemisphere as a whole here.
B. Three years ago a decade long study in Greenland indicated a TOTAL 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume. Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss. "Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."... Or about 0.020" a year or 0.2" since 2000...
C. Greenland had a multi-year survey conducted that concluded that its ice volume was 703,424 cubic miles or 2,931,000 cubic kilometers during 1999. This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume mave have INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf
3. The latest data on Antarcta...
A. A new surface mass balance (SMB) map of Antarctic shows no significant trend for the period 1979-2010. Note that this is a modeling study, but the authors claim it is in good agreement with 750 surface measuring stations. See full paper and graphics here.
B. Antarctica reached the highest levels of ice coverage and volume ever recorded in 2007. And the average Antarctica temperature has DECREASED during the last 40+years... According to; NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, & SSMI...
C. The lastest sea ice coverage for Antarctica is ABOVE the normal for the last 30+years and has been for months. see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png/
These are the reports from the NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, SSMI, etc. Data bases...
Or you can believe in these reports...
1. Mann - Hockey Stick - (falsafied data)
2. IPCC Himalaya ice melting 20% by 2035 - (mistake)... see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
3. Arctic ice free by 2013 or at least by 2040 - Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis... see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
4. NOAA-16 - satallite temperature readings in ERROR due to faulty sensors... see US Government admits satellite temperature readings "degraded." All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high. Aug 12, 2010
5. Shrinking Greenland & Antarctic ice fields total of 100+cubic miles a year for last decade, VERIFIED with GRACE measurments, using data base with +/-20% ERROR. Which results in a 75.6+cubic mile error, just from the PGR data base... see GRACE web site & PGR - The "best" model we recommend is now based on Paulson et al (2007), with an uncertainty of +/- 20%.
reference - http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/
Here we go again ... no the small uncertainty in GRACE data doesn't result in a 75 cubic mile error, because you slipped a decimal point and also included large areas of Antarctica that aren't melting yet. If you really think NASA is wrong about this, then perhaps you should write to them about it. And what's the point of bringing up the typo in the IPCC report? ... Even the correct figure (that the high-altitude Himalayan glaciers could completely melt by 2350) is of concern to future generations. And investigations have shown that Michael Mann did not falsify data; he made a small error that was corrected, and other research has largely confirmed the "hockey stick."
We will IGNORE the researcher that conducted the UK Oak Tree research. That has stated that the data Mann used for his 'Hockey Stick' does not reflect only temperature. That rain, soil conditions, and wildlife also greatly effected these tree rings...
1. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph did an in-depth study of Michael Mann’s data used to produce the hockey stick graph. What he found was that Mann used a data analysis method that essentially forced the data sets (mostly tree-ring proxies, but also other proxies) to take the shape of strongest shapes found in any data set. Most of the data sets exhibited no trend. But those that did were weighted in an unrealistic manner. Detailed information about his analysis can be found at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html...
2. McKitrick’s analysis was further backed up by a study by Wegman etc al [Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University.], which verified that Mann’s hockey-stick graph was invalid... see [McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005a) “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications.” Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100; (2005b) “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance” Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, L03710 10.1029/2004GL021750 12 February 2005. See www.climateaudit.org
3. Missing Medieval Warm Period (something that Mann & IPCC denies occurred)... see research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics report on a recent paper using proxies, which verifies the occurrence of the MWP: [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html] “A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.”
4. One of the most recent multi-proxy reconstructions was published in 2005 by Moberg et al (Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Further evidence of how Mann’s hockey stick does not match reality... see
Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 10 February 2005 -- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko & Wibjörn Karlén) (This is the red line shown in Figure 1-4 in Part 1. of this document) [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html] and [http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf]
It wasn't just a typo error...
They based their findings on a magazine writer’s phone interview with an Indian scientist — not data gleaned from the peer reviewed literature.
I can go along with the statement in the NCDC report that "This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue," however none of that invalidates the predicted warming of 5 to 10 deg F due to CO2. Are you betting we'll get lucky and natural variability will offset the effects of CO2, even though the natural variability is very rarely that large? Not something I want to bet the future on.
EricH-3359508,
I'm stating that the historical atmospheric CO2 measurements are BS. That the hysteria about INCREASING CO2 is INACCURATE and does not reflect REALITY...
Calcification has stabilized the worlds Ocean's pH and atmospheric CO2 for the history of the Earth...
While mankind, can and does screw-up the local environment, and this has to be STOPPED...
The GLOBAL environment is dictated by the Sun and Oceans, NOT MAN...
Look closly @ the data from the ice cores, that you place so much faith in...
BTY - The last 6 warm periods obtained higher temperatures than are currently being recorded. By about 2 to 3 c and they reached these at a high rate than the current ...
So what published research supports the claim of CO2 measurements being so wrong? And which 6 warm periods? The temperature data in the NCDC (Moberg) study covering 2,000 years only varies by about 1.5 deg C, with no temperatures at all higher than recent record years including 1998, 2005 and 2010.
The latest Ice core studies cover over 800,000+years and indicate 11-climate cycles. The original ice cores obtained at the Russian Vostok facility only indicated 4-climate cycles. Vostok data - Download Vostok Data
In today's online journal Science, the team showed that the coldest period occurred around 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum, when the ice sheets were at their peak.
It was about 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than today. (Related: "Antarctica's Atmosphere Warming Dramatically, Study Finds" [March 30, 2006].)
Meanwhile, the warmest period was during the last interglacial period, which is an interval of warmer global average temperature that separates ice ages. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today.
Reference - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
Ice core data questioned...
1. Some contamination has been detected in ice cores. The levels of lead on the outside of ice cores is much higher than on the inside.Template:RefIn ice from the Vostok core (Antarctica), the outer portion of the cores have up to 3 and 2 orders of magnitude higher bacterial density and dissolved organic carbon than the inner portion of the cores, respectively, as a result of drilling and handling.Template:Ref
2. Decompression causes significant volume expansion (called relaxation) due to microcracking and the exsolving of enclathratized gases. Cores obtained by hot water drilling at Siple Dome in 1997-1998underwent appreciably more relaxation than cores obtained with the PICO electro-mechanical drill. In addition, the fact that cores were allowed to remain at the surface at elevated temperature for several days likely promoted the onset of rapid relaxation. [10] (http://waiscores.dri.edu/MajorFindings/MeeseGowRes.html) & (http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/Contri_Series/full/09.html#8)
3. And then there is the contamination by microbes & fungus...
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, has written numerous research papers on the ice cores... see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
The warm temperatures mentioned in the National Geographic article were Antarctic only, not global temperatures. While you continue to exaggerate the problems with ice cores, scientists are using new and improved methods to assess past CO2 levels and the carbon cycle all the time ... see the story "Carbon Dioxide Was Hidden in the Ocean During Last Ice Age" on sciencedaily.com. It reports a "new method for isotope measurements [that] has now made it possible for the first time to reliably decode the fingerprint of the CO2 preserved in the ice..."
I guess you missed the part about the IPCC basing their GLOBAL temperate on the 'Ice Core Data' from Antarctica...
Accurate thermometers were developed about 300+years ago. In 1724 Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer...
Global weather records only cover the last 200+years. The older records are from very limited areas with questionable accuracy...
Historical temperature records prior to these developments are from SWAGs obtained from; ice cores, sediment data, tree rings, etc, etc...
"UN climate panel ties some weather extremes to global warming"
The people in the UN probably can't tie their own shoes let alone analyze weather. Get rid of this worthless organization.
It is not the UN doing the research. It is the top climate scientist. And they are smarter than you (and me).
And the idiot UN's answer to it all is to suck more money out of OUR pockets, redistribue more of OUR money and assets to the nations THEY think should have it? Screw the UN and the donkeys they rode in one. Pitch the UN OUT of the US, pull our funding of the marxist fools, and be done wioth them.
EricH-3359508,
Your math is flawed and you left out the Antarctica ice coverage...
The GRACE article stated that Greenland and Antarctica combined were losing 100+cubic miles of ice on average every year for the last DECADE...
Greenland - 836,109 square miles...
Antarctica - 5,405,430 square miles, with approx 100,00 square miles ice free...
Accepted error of 2mm or 0.787" just from the PGR...
[836,109 + 5,305,430 square miles] X 0.787"error / 63,360"/mile = 75.6 cubic mile error rate just from the PGR...
I hope your research abilities are better than YOUR math abilities...
No, you made the biggest math error by converting 2 mm into 0.787 inches instead of 0.0787 inches. That's a factor of 10. I didn't include Antarctica because most of the ice melt is currently from Greenland.
EricH-3359508,
Opps your correct about the conversion error...
' I didn't include Antarctica because most of the ice melt is currently from Greenland.' - Reference???
No problem ... See www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html. Estimate is that Antarctic ice loss is 24 cubic miles per year since 2002 out of total of about 100 cubic miles.
I just tried your reference - result
The page you requested either doesn't exist anymore, or was moved.
You can try searching for the topic, or follow the links below.
Try using GOOD references and then VERIFY that they work...
24 cubic miles per year - Is damn accurate when Antarctica has a ice mass of OVER 30 million cubic km of 7,197,383 cubic miles of ice...
“In the March 25 2008 issue of EOS, there was a News item by Marco Tedesco titled “Updated 2008 Surface snowmelt Trends in Antarctica” (subscribers only). It reports the following:
Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007. The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987–2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days (km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days (Figure 1a). Melt extent (ME, the extent of the area subject to melting) in 2008 set a new minimum with 297,500 square kilometers, against an average value of approximately 861,812 square kilometers.”
reference - http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/antarcticas-ice-mass-is-it-really-losing-ice-gaining-ice-or-both.html
The link is still there (just copy and paste), and it emphasizes that ice can "flow" into the sea without actually melting. And even if Antarctica didn't exist, Greenland ice melt and thermal expansion could still cause significant sea level rise.
Most likely it's to establish a need so the USA can continue to pump millions of dollars towards another worthless cause.
Critics found a flawed analysis of Himalayan glacier melt, and a few other questionable data, but overall the thousands of pages of IPCC documents have stood the test of scientific review.
Don't think these reports haven't been attacked with a vigor, and, as it says, they have stood the test.
Really? That's talking about a 10-year period, which is not enough to test a long-term trend. Many factors affect climate from year to year, and they will often override the background signal from CO2 in the short-term. But over at least a 30-50 year time frame, the steadily rising greenhouse effect will make itself apparent (and probably already has).
Don't be so sure you have all of science figured out just because you found an op-ed that tells you what you want to hear.
No warming from 1979 to 2012? LOL.
February 2012 is a data point, not a trend. If you can't tell the difference then you shouldn't be commenting on science articles.
What seems to be hard for you to understand is the difference between instantaneous readings and trends. The fact that there has been an upward trend since 1979 is obvious. Whether that continues or not depends on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which we have known it is for over 100 years.
And, as I pointed out above, the -0.12 deg C figure is suspect. NOAA says +0.37 deg C for Feb 2012. Plus, let's wait for La Nina to finally end so we return to more "neutral" conditions.
EricH-3359508,
Numbers without a reference are BS...
While the US 'Heat Island' based temperature averages are trending HIGHER. The WORLD and Alaska just had one of the coldest winters on record, with record snow falls...
The USA/Mexico droughts on average occure every 80+years. MORE severe droughts occurred about 1730, 1815, and in the 1930s. Since these extreme, long-lasting droughts have occurred in the past, it is reasonable to assume that they may occur in the future, too.
.. see http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy80093.000/hsy80093_0.HTM
You want the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Ozone hole effects to also stabilize. So your AGW can be relevant???
Without a reference? You can find the +0.37 deg C figure for February on a direct link from the NOAA homepage. And it includes the entire world, not just the U.S. I didn't mention droughts, but as I recall the 2011 Texas drought was worse than a similar event in the 1950s.
Just like Mann, refusing to supply data and/or references to validate your claim...
If you're talking about the Texas drought claim, just look it up in the MSNBC archives from last year. I don't have time to look up everything.
OK, I did finally look it up on MSNBC. The article Texas 2011 Drought Deemed 'Most Costly' has the following quote:
“2011 was the driest year on record and certainly an infamous year of distinction for the state’s farmers and ranchers,” said Dr. David Anderson, AgriLife Extension livestock economist in a press release.
(I added the italics emphasis.)
The discussion is about climate cycles, not economics...
Not much was being grown in Texas 140+years ago...
That's why I emphasized the part about "driest year on record." The rainfall record probably goes back to the late 1800s, and it's reasonable to assume the economist has access to that data.
UAH global temperature anomaly NASA:
1. The global temperature anomaly has been released for the month of February, 2012 and the average global temperature has cooled by 0.12 degrees celsius...
2. The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for January, 2012 has cooled by 0.09 degrees celsius, not totally unexpected for a La Nina January...
The global temperature average from the lower tropospheric measurements, avoids the ERRORS associated with; 'heat islands', missing data from certain regions, calibration variations, etc, etc...
As you correctly pointed out, La Nina has a big influence on the lower troposphere temperatures reported by UAH. The data fluctuate a lot, and have shown significant positive anomalies in the past year or two. Let's wait for more data before drawing any conclusions.
Anyone can make a prediction after the fact and appear correct. The one thing that can't be done with the climate or large scale weather is conduct a controlled experiment. That puts all of this into the realm of "soft science" which is one step up from the "dismal science" of economics but still nothing worth expending effort on. We can't do anything at all about CO2 without building lots of nuclear plants and even that isn't going to make much difference, so what is the point?
You don't have to have a controlled experiment to have hard science. It does help the strength of inference, but we are quite capable of figuring out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even with only one planet to work with.
We can figure out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas even without any planets to work with. It follows from basic physics.
The Mars atmosphere is 95+% CO2. It is also indicating INCREASING atmospheric temperatures...
Must be caused by the Rovers and their measuring equipment...
AC Robertson, has mars' temperature been rising as quickly as Earths? Has mars' temperature been rising as steadily as Earths over the past 50 years, or is it only rising this year due to the standard 11-year solar cycle that's currently heading toward solar maximum?
The title says it all. "U.N. Climate Experts.." This is nothing but more junk science peddled by hucksters intent on global wealth redistribution.
One of these days, the sheep criticizing the skeptics might just grow up.
The funny thing is that you actually think this will all go away if you just close your eyes and say "NANANANA" for long enough. LOL. Sorry. This isn't going away. The science is real, regardless of the politics. We will still be talking about it 20 years from now, and more people will be asking why we didn't do something about it sooner.
And we're taking names.
What is fascist about taking anonymity away from obstructionists? I don't really care about internet commenters, but when more people start asking why we didn't do anything sooner, you bet we're going to point fingers at the Inhofes and Michaels of the world.
He's a Republican. All they do is close their eyes and say NANANANANANA.
Teenage pregnancy? Should we teach kids how to use condoms and other forms of birth control? nah. NANANANANANANA
Income inequality? Should we invest in programs to help poor people become productive citizens and improve the economy? nah. NANANANANANANA
Climate warming? NANANANANANA It's not warming. And if it is we're not causing it. And if we're causing it we're not causing it too much. And if it's all man-made it'll be too expensive to fix it.
The information is readily available, and it is not my job to argue data in a chatroom, especially with someone whose mind is already made up. If you want to declare victory based on that, go right ahead. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and everyone will realize it sooner or later. But if you can't deal with it, it's not my problem.
Really, here's one table: ft p://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Note that almost all of the anomalies (wrt 1901-2000 mean) before 1900 were negative, that there were an even mix of positive and negative anomalies in the 70's, but no negative anomalies since the 90's.
That's an unmistakable trend for those with honest eyes.
JimCA, don't talk to them about real, concrete, long-term data, as they have their blame-man-for-everything, there-is-no-God mindset, and facts will only get in their way!
The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...
1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs'.
2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate, professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010 essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” — in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)
3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr. Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
He has published more than 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2. One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO2, determine climate, 21st Century Science and Technology.
5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived by science and the scientist involved.'
For a book containing the hundreds of other prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html
The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...
Energy conservation and minimal environmental impact, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...
Critics Slam Fox News for Distorting Global Warming Debate
A leaked email has revealed a Fox News editor telling his staffers to
refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed or cooled in any given
period without immediately pointing out that such theories are based
upon questionable data. Critics say such a directive mischaracterizes
the issue of global warming as an even-sided scientific debate when in
fact the concept is accepted by a vast majority of researchers.
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71473.html
Sorry that reference no longer works for seeing, "The Deniers", Subtitled, "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud," is a 2008 book by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environmentalist and writer.
For a review and overview see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_against_global_warming_hysteria,_political_persecution,_and_fraud
It amazes me how much proof people want or don't even believe in global warming. Do you believe in colds? Nobody can prove you have a cold? There are not at this time any cures or accurate tests we can do to your body, you only have a few symptoms that lasts a week maybe but come back a least once a year. Yet symptoms are not proof..Do colds exist???
We know last year that the sun made it's complete orbit and solar flares have been out of this world. Look up yourself what tiny solar flares have inconvenienced us with since last year. We know that part of Venice is under water. Yes the earth does have a cycle, but the cycle this time is happening way too quickly and to be honest nobody can predict what year will be the start of the down hill slide. Once those ice caps start melting changing the temp of the Atlantic current and the water gets higher, the sun itself is still getting hotter, not to mention temperature changes, droughts etc but hey these are all just symptoms. We can't prove the whole climate of the earth has changed to everybody....we can't force people to help to see if we can take preventative measures....so I guess the best thing to do is to laugh, criticize than if you believe say it's a force of good just like they did to the doctor who insisted germs existed. Pasteur, that fool. So I guess those Dr.s working on a cure for the cold should stop. I mean after all some other idiot Dr thought maybe the Egyptians were onto something in there writings, regarding mysterious illness and VICKS we just "think" that works. Since the general consensus seems to be we have no hard core data, no exact dates since these numbers fluctuate, kind of like the human body, after all the whole earth is constantly moving and all it's parts only symptoms and theory-though you will not find a scientist to say global warming does not exist. Just ask Sarah Palin, she sued the Gov. and George W. stating all of the ones who came to Alaska were paid off.
The only logical answer is that the medical field and now all scientist have had us under mind control and somehow I have just broken free and realized the germs, colds and global warming do not exist. Don't worry I will attempt to free others before they catch me!
Why is it only msLSD that keeps spewing this gas? Since "climategate" broke the glo-BULL warming scam. mr. methane himself, al gore has gone totally dark. Where has thst fat bag of gas gone? He left AFTER he made MILLIONS on the scam.
Sheeple will always be sheeple. The same ones that will tell you that obozo as done a great job as POTUS. Not!
You seem to be living in a cave. So-called "climategate" was shown to be nothing more than a felony committed by the people who stole the emails. The scientists were proven (in several independent investigations) to have done accurate, honest, and reproducible science.
And every penny Gore made from publicizing this issue went to charity.
But don't let facts get in the way of your idiotic rants.
Al Gore is still out there doing his thing, in 5/10 in merged all his non-profit groups together to create Alliance for Climate Protection which covers many areas, also last year and it my possibly have run into this one he made a tour around the globe with volunteers who were educated about various topics regarding global warming. The volunteers spoke at local schools etc where as Gore spoke as invited to heads of state, organization etc. He is not just sitting around doing nothing.
Let's not forget that the same UN panel tied global warming to ingrown toenails, male pattern baldness and the North Korean pig-poo-pie project.
Yet the UN panel is not the first to connect weather with global warming, as sad as it is that was one of the first connection made ever. When have we ever looked to the UN for anything other than policing the conflicts that involve other countries (most often ours) and sending money, supplies and aide to where it is needed. Yes they do slack a bit on that. I know each country pays a % for a spot but I can't remember and please shout out to me, who regulates the UN? Perhaps I worded that badly I'm aware they vote etc, I'm also aware many countries can't make it hence the poorer the country, the poorer the seat and the less events you are able to attend but does anybody police the world police??? If the UN was set up to aide countries with food etc why are we looked down upon regarding countries we stop sending various supplies to. SO...POLICE FOR THE WORLD POLICE? They don't seem to be doing much of anything....yet a lot of money goes in.
The last IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri was a engineer... A train engineer, no climate science credentials at all...
The primary author of an oft-cited studysupporting Algore's View of Earth is Dr. Peter Doran. His study is one of the scriptures in the refrain, “There is a consensus among climatologists.” Education: B.Sc., Trent University; M.Sc., Queen's University; Ph.D., University of Nevada-Reno. The degrees are in Geology and Hydrology, but not assigned. His co-writer was Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. She was one of his graduate students. Can't find her degrees - but no Ph.D. Not a “climatology” degree in the lot. Go figure.
So does UIC have a "Climatology" major? Nope. Closest thing is Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
I could go through every single paper presented as proof of Algore's Earth View written by "climatologists" searching in vain for a "climatology" degree. Not there. The reason is because the very first such degree program in the world took students in just 2001.
Continue reading on Examiner.com What is a 'Climatologist,' precisely? - Philadelphia Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-philadelphia/what-is-a-climatologist-precisely#ixzz1ogsG3a6R
Ignorant republicans have made hay disrespecting science for decades, but these days the common person looks down at their "mobile-device" and thinks it is cool; they trust science;
republicans are wrong AGAIN;
someday everyone will look back at repubs and wonder... how could they have been so blind?
Because the rich ones are greedy and making money, and the poor ones are to stupid to understand what it's all about. Science is something they avoided in school.
Not as many. If you're honest with yourself, you'll acknowledge that.
The science has been politicized in both directions, but none of that changes the science.
The science is actually quite clear that anthropogenic climate change is real.
Of course the climate is in constant change mode; nobody has ever said differently.
Actually, no "scientist" ever thought the earth was flat; that was mostly the uneducated masses. But even if they did, the fact that scientists were once wrong would not prove that they are wrong whenever you want them to be.
More like how could you dumBs be so blind not being able to see the actual agenda of one world govt ?The climate will always flucuate ,you aren't going to be able to adjust it .
Global warmings and global coolings have been happening before modern humans appeared on the planet eareth about 200,000 years ago. Ice core drilled at Antarctica shows that 400,000 years ago there was a similar global weather situation as today and there was not a single gas powered car then. Go figure.
Just because you drive a car doesn't mean you have to deny global warming. We all drive them and we're not stopping anytime soon. That's why we would need larger entities, like governments and big energy companies, to make changes in greenhouse gas emissions happen. It won't happen just from individuals altering their habits.
Doug-950479. Show me where am I denying or not global warming, or make anyone to do so? You are so misguided, that you can not read a simple statment I put above.
"there was a similar global weather situation as today and there was not a single gas powered car then."
You're right, and all climate scientists are well aware of this. They also know that humans are not the only factor that produces carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is not the only factor that affects climate, so the fact that climate changes naturally says nothing about whether we can affect it ALSO.
jock59801 - you said: so the fact that climate changes naturally says nothing about whether we can affect it ALSO. The fact that climat changes naturally says a lot. It also says that we can affect it, in a positive way, so to speak. If 400,000 years ago there was no humas as we know it, and the levels of "greenhouse" gases were similar as today, it means that without all that "pollution" we create, our planet Earth would be one piece of ice, and we humans would be as alive as mammoths today. All that "pollution" that we create keeps our behinds warm - so keep farting :)
The pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm was already enough to prevent the Earth from becoming "one piece of ice." We're now over 390 ppm and increasing at about 2 ppm per year.
EricH-3359508,
Do you even know how those numbers were obtained???
They were obtained from the ice cores obtained at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica...
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?by Prof Z Jaworowski, Prof T V Segalstad and N Ono
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, was an expert in ice studies, and became appalled at what he regarded as unacceptably bad science, verging on fraud at times. He maintained the ice core CO2 record was not trustworthy, and in particular, a "gas age" as big as 83 years was unjustified.
It was found that the CO2 content of the air trapped in pre-industrial and ancient ice is rather high, and has a very wide concentration range of about 100-7400 ppm (Table 1). Even more important was the finding that several physical and chemical processes (such as melting, the presence of liquid brines in the capillary-like interstitial voids, the presence of carbonates, over-pressure in the air bubbles, and solid deposition of super-cooled fog, combined with large differences in the solubility of different gases in cold water, and mobility of CO2 in ice) lead to differentiation of the original atmospheric ratios of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2, and to depletion or enrichment of CO2 in the ice (Coachman et al 1958; Hemmingsen 1959; Scholander et al 1961; Matsuo and Miyake 1966; Raynaud and Delmas 1977).
Three different methods of gas extraction were used, and they produced different results. This is illustrated in Fig 2. It can be seen that in air from the same section of a pre-industrial ice core, after 7 hrs "wet" extraction of melted ice, the CO2 concentration was up to about 1000 ppm, and it was 1.5 - 4.5 times higher than after [just] 15 min "wet" extraction. The "dry" extraction, consisting in crushing or shaving the ice samples at about -20ºC, produced results similar to the 15 min "wet" extraction. The short "wet" and "dry" extractions recovered about a half or less of the total CO2 present in the ice.
After 1980 most of the studies of CO2 in glaciers were carried out on Greenland and Art arctic ice by Swiss and French research groups; one core was studied in an Australian laboratory. A striking feature of the data published until about 1985 is the high concentrations of CO2 in air extracted from both pre-industrial and ancient ice, often much higher than in the contemporary atmosphere (Table 1).
Direct atmospheric readings were not conducted until 1959 at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Even these were inaccurate due to the roads, crops being grown around the research station, and they fail to mention the erupting volcano next door.
Ernst Beck has published a highly controversial paper about the chemical measurements of CO2 for the past two centuries... see http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-163931.html
Well, "highly controversial" is probably an understatement for the Beck data, since much of the data was gathered near major cities, factories, etc., and there is no reasonable explanation for global variations as large as his data shows (on the order of 100 ppm before high CO2 emissions). Of course the Mauna Loa data isn't perfect, but the glitches you refer to are small, on the order of 1 or 2 ppm or less. The ice core data used today is the best available, and correlates well with estimated ice-age and inter-glacial temperatures. The Vostok data clearly shows the strong correlation (you can look up their plots in several places), which is very unlikely to have happened by chance if the CO2 data had large margins of error.
I didn't need to pay a bunch of people to form a panel all I have to do is note how winters used to be and how they are now. They used to be much colder, and I can remember snow drifts over my head, now we're lucky to see half a dozen snows in a winters time. The problem is worse then anyone imagines or will admit.
Really" once again, Kat was talking about a trend, whereas you are talking about an irrelevant single year. But weather patterns are in fact very difficult to attribute to long-term climate change, so that part may always be open to argument.
Kat, you are also talking about a very short timespan to prove ANY theory or pattern. We just don't have enough long-term data to be saying conclusively that the pattern we are in is anything more than a normal up and down cycle in the earth's temperature. And we are NOT giving up our sovreignty and a pile of money to some marxist organization that wants to redistribute wealth because they say so. Taking our money and handing it out is what this is really about, just like the socialist-in-chief, Bozobama wants to do.
You were probably a whole lot shorter then
I'm talking of around 30 years, exactly how long does it take before one can see a pattern?
Portland International Airport (PDX) had the latest snowfall in recorded history last week.
The distribution of global temperatures has shifted about 2 standard deviations warmer. Looking at the extremes, cold events 3 SD's out that used to happen occasionally are now 5 SD's out and almost never happen. Meanwhile heat events that were 5 SD's out and almost never happened are now only about 3 SD's out and happen occasionally.
Heat events 3 SD's out that used to happen less than 1% of the time are now only 1 SD out and happen over 10% of the time.
Those are hard statistical facts, as much as the naysayers would like them to go away.
Jus sayin...
So it has been raining since 1950? Just once I would like to see the MSNBC staff writers actually publish an article that doesn't contain a grammatical error.
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Give us money. Give us money.
That sums it up nicely.
look! up in the sky! Its a bird ! its a plane! its, its a Chem Trail being sprayed. Geo Engineering the global climate is whats f^&%)g up planet earth. Stop the spraying now.
Prior to the extensive flooding in China, Australia, and Thailand...
They were ALL seeding the clouds to make it rain...
1. In February 2009, China also blasted iodide sticks over Beijing to artificially induce snowfall after four months of drought, and blasted iodide sticks over other areas of northern China to increase snowfall. The snowfall in Beijing lasted for approximately three days and led to the closure of 12 main roads around Beijing.[27] At the end of October 2009 Beijing claimed it had its earliest snowfall since 1987 due to cloud seeding.[28]
2. In Australia, CSIRO’s activities in Tasmania in the 1960s were successful.[37] Seeding over the Hydro-Electricity Commission catchment area on the Central Plateau achieved rainfall increases as high as 30% in autumn. The Tasmanian experiments were so successful that the Commission has regularly undertaken seeding ever since in mountainous parts of the State.
In 2004, Snowy Hydro Limited began a trial of cloud seeding to assess the feasibility of increasing snow precipitation in the Snowy Mountains in Australia.[38] The test period, originally scheduled to end in 2009, was later extended to 2014.[38]
3. During 2005, more than 30 flights a day have been heading for the clouds in Thailand to persuade them to part with their water. The planes spray silver iodine, salt and dry ice causing vapour droplets to freeze and fall to the ground. Cloud seeding, as this technique is known, 1,000 times in less than a month has eased the toughest drought for seven years by 80 per cent.
Cloud seeding experiments have been taking place for more than 60 years and the technique has also been applied successfully in Australia, China, Malaysia and the Philippines.
Prior to the 2010 & 2011 floods, Thailand was also seeding the clouds to reduce the agricultural induced haze and to induce rain fall...
BTY - The quantity of water in the 2011 Thailand flood was comparable to the 1995 flood. But due to the over building in known flood zones and a 13x rise in population, the damage was extensive outside of Bangkok. The Great 1945 flood contained 4x the flood waters, of either the 1995 or 2011 floods...
The understanding we have of the mechanics of the planetary ecocsystem has progressed tremendously over my lifetime. When I was in high school, it was just being taught that we were beginning to accept that the "theory" of plate tectonics, was becoming acceptable. Do any "scientists" doubt that today ?
This is still a relatively young planet, with cycles of development, which we may or may not be able to affect as a species. We have not developed the tools or the dataset to make more than WAG's at the impact of the species on the planetary scale. Personally I think that a super volcano or a high magnitude impact event will likely make the debate moot before the data can be collected to see the impact of the species. That is a remote possibilty in my lifetime, yet it exists.
Should we be responsible caretakers, absolutely. Should we freak out over incomplete data, I think not. Trust me, If we truly insult the planet it will defend itself, violently if needed.
That's more or less the point of the article ... weather events are becoming more extreme. I wouldn't call it "the planet defending itself;" it's just a reality of physics that we're going to have to deal with, especially if we don't curtail carbon emissions soon.
More extreme???
Research;
1. Hurricane Hazel - 20'+feet stormsurge in NC & SC, and 100+MPH winds in Ontario. The people on the cost did not even know the hurricane was going to make land-fall...
2. Thailand Great flood of 1945 contained 4x the amount of water of the 1995 & 2011 floods...
3. The US Drought of the 1930s, was much worse than the current drought...
4. The US hurricanes of the last decade have been milder and have made fewer land falls...
5. The increased floods in Pakistan, India, etc, have been attributed to the cutting down of the trees and extensive building in known flood planes...
6. More people building in more hazardous areas and better reporting - Equals more hysteria...
More extreme weather cannot be determined by individual events like a single flood or hurricane. 2010 and 2011 were the two wettest years on record, in terms of globally-averaged precipitation over land. (I believe that was reported by the WMO, but you can also find it reported on skepticalscience.com.) And the Union of Concerned Scientists cites a report that "Very heavy precipitation events, defined as the heaviest one percent, now drop 67 percent more precipitation in the Northeast, 31 percent more in the Midwest and 15 percent more in the Great Plains, including the Dakotas, than they did 50 years ago."
and the gorebal whining agenda continues ..
You will never convince the nay sayers that we affect our climate. There are still those who believe that the dust bowl of the 30's was an act of God and had nothing to do with poor farming practices.
What we "naysayers " are saying is , you ain't going to adjust the climate by taxation . It will continue to flucuate just like it ALWAYS has .
The U.N. Has proven so honest, competent, Intellegent, loyal, trustworthy and prudent, I belive whatever they say...
UN in the Headline told me all I need to know.