Climate change to make millions homeless

[Scorpius]

Global Warming? Really? Tell that to many Canadians who are or have been experiencing late spring temperatures.

Is global warming a myth? I'd say so judging by how this year has gone.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/04/01/mb-cold-april-winnipeg.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/03/first-day-of-spring-canadians-yearn-for-winters-end.html

New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real

London, 15 March: A new report written by Dr David Whitehouse and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.

After reviewing the scientific literature the report concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth’s global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.

“The standstill is a reality and is not the result of cherry-picking start and end points. Its commencement can be seen clearly in the data, and it continues to this day,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the author of the new report.

The report shows that the temperature standstill has been a much discussed topic in peer-reviewed scientific literature for years, but that this scientific debate has neither been followed by most of the media, nor acknowledged by climate campaigners, scientific societies and prominent scientists.

The report also surveys how those few journalists who have looked at the issue have been reporting the standstill, with many far too ready to dismiss it or lacking a sense of journalistic inquiry, preferring to report squabbles rather than the science.

”If the standstill continues for a few more years it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime,” said the report’s author, Dr David Whitehouse.

In his foreword, Lord Turnbull, former Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, commented:

“Dr Whitehouse is a man who deserves to be listened to. He has consistently followed an approach of examining observations rather than projections of large scale computer models, which are too often cited as ‘evidence’. He looks dispassionately at the data, trying to establish what message it tells us, rather than using it to confirm a pre-held view.”

Source: http://www.thegwpf.org/report-global-temperature-standstill-real/

[Doug1029]

Considering what we know of the geological record, this has happened before. It seems that Anarctica might have once been in tropical latitudes.

Antarctica froze over 12 to 15 million years ago, about the same time that the Straights of Panama closed. There were major changes in ocean circulation as a result of those events.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Global Warming? Really? Tell that to many Canadians who are or have been experiencing late spring temperatures.

Is global warming a myth? I'd say so judging by how this year has gone.

You are mistaking climate and weather. Weather is that thunderstorm you see coming over the horizon. Climate is the probability that there will be another thunderstorm a hundred years from now. Weather is the specifics, climate is the average.

You are also forgetting that what is happening in Ottawa does not necessarily reflect what is happening at McMurdo Station. It's called GLOBAL warming because it is based on a GLOBAL average, not a Canadian average (or a US average, or an Irish average, etc.).

Doug

[moonshadow60]

The term is now climate change. Everyone can agree that climate changes, whether it is warmer or cooler. I agree that something is going on. It has been going on since the beginning of time on this planet and will be after we are all gone. I just don't think charging everyone so much for using the climate and a certain elite group getting rich off all of our misery is going to make anything better for anyone but that elite group.

[Starseed hybrid 1111]

i am no weather expert but climate warming is a natural event and not man made like most easily deceived people think and etc.but to me this is natural weather rising higher temperatures and etc.although it is a possibility that it could affect humanity and animals alike and the places we live at i don't think it will be that bad either.that's just my personal opinion and another thing i question all so called "experts" as should everybody before you all jump ship fist then find out that you could have been deceived

[keithisco]

i am no weather expert but climate warming is a natural event and not man made like most easily deceived people think and etc.but to me this is natural weather rising higher temperatures and etc.although it is a possibility that it could affect humanity and animals alike and the places we live at i don't think it will be that bad either.that's just my personal opinion and another thing i question all so called "experts" as should everybody before you all jump ship fist then find out that you could have been deceived

Or, in other words..."I shall ignore ALL of the evidence that mankind has made ANY contribution whatsoever to the geologically significant increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?"

Fortunately your lifespan (like everyone elses) is too short to actually make any determination based on personal observations. Equally fortunate, are those driving the engine of sustainable development that will allow our descendents a chance to thrive, rather than just to survive.

[MedicTJ]

Here's what I don't understand. If this is a man-made problem, why does everyone point fingers at the United States?

Has anyone looked at an actual photo of Beijing? You literally can't see past 2 city blocks....and that's not because of fog.

Beijing looks worse than 1982 Los Angeles.

STOP blaming the United States for this stuff. There's a reason half the damn country is broke. We're doing our damn part.

[Guest]

Here's what I don't understand. If this is a man-made problem, why does everyone point fingers at the United States?

Has anyone looked at an actual photo of Beijing? You literally can't see past 2 city blocks....and that's not because of fog.

Beijing looks worse than 1982 Los Angeles.

STOP blaming the United States for this stuff. There's a reason half the damn country is broke. We're doing our damn part.

Because the American per capita emissions are about 10 times that of the average Chinese persons. Every individual has the right to emit a sustainable level of CO2, but the USA is abusing that right.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

It really doesn't matter to me whether the climate has changed in the past or not. I would just rather it doesn't while I'm around. As has been said, living in "interesting times" can be a curse.

[Frank Merton]

Because the American per capita emissions are about 10 times that of the average Chinese persons. Every individual has the right to emit a sustainable level of CO2, but the USA is abusing that right.

As I see it, there are two general approaches to reducing emissions: by edict or by incentive. Which do you propose for the US?

[Guest]

As I see it, there are two general approaches to reducing emissions: by edict or by incentive. Which do you propose for the US?

Incentive are always going to be more effective, but many people choose to ignore them. At that point price signals have to come into play to bring in those people who are ignoring the incentives.

The idea with Carbon taxes of any kind has always been that any revenue generated is ring fenced to only be spendable on energy saving inititives. Hence those who follow the strategic objectives will remain cost neutral. You only need to be out of pocket if you ignore the incentives and shoulder the penalties.

Whether any particular government follows this model is another matter however.

Br Cornelius

[Capt Amerika]

Climate has changed hundreds of times over the past 4.6 billion years, it has been warmer and colder than it is now and that includes times before man.

It will continue along that cycle whether we are here or not.

You want to run scared? knock yourself out.

I couldn't care less.

I for one am not egotistical enough to believe that the Earth will die because of humans.

It will correct itself one way or another and if that means making humans extinct so be it.

You want to "do your part"? have at it.

I for one have a life to live and its too short to worry about things that happen in cycles and where in that cycle i happen to be born.

[Doug1029]

Climate has changed hundreds of times over the past 4.6 billion years, it has been warmer and colder than it is now and that includes times before man.

It will continue along that cycle whether we are here or not.

You want to run scared? knock yourself out.

I couldn't care less.

I for one am not egotistical enough to believe that the Earth will die because of humans.

It will correct itself one way or another and if that means making humans extinct so be it.

You want to "do your part"? have at it.

I for one have a life to live and its too short to worry about things that happen in cycles and where in that cycle i happen to be born.

The short-term problem with climate change is that we humans have invested a huge amount in the status quo. Rising sea level is not a problem if nobody lives near the coast. But that's exactly where most of us live.

It's not a problem if you don't eat food grown in the southern Great Plains. But over the course of their lives nearly all Americans will consume about 40 acres of wheat grown exactly there. And that area is already en route to becoming a desert and will probably get there in the next drought cycle.

The deforestation of the American West has already begun. We are in the midst of several major bark beetle epidemics brought on by warmer winter temps. And that will mean lumber, paper and housing will cost more. So don't complain about prices.

What the big-business-propagandists aren't telling you is that replacing our current power systems with more-efficient ones (like wind) will REDUCE costs, not increase them. Same with energy conservation. You don't have to switch to hydrogen powered vehicles if you don't want to, but they will likely be cheaper to operate than gasoline powered ones (Those folks in the McDonald's drive-through with their engines running are expressing their opinion that gas prices aren't high enough yet.).

For you Brits: I got to wondering why wind power costs so much over there. Think I figured it out: you use windmills with small fans and you don't put them up high enough. Small fans are less efficient (Think: more money for less power.) and wind is not as strong closer to the ground, so you generate less power with what you do put up. What I think happened is that the government jumped the gun on converting to wind. The politicians wanted to create the impression that they were doing something, so they started putting up windmills without properly researching the issue first. As a result, you're paying for something works poorly.

The US did the same thing with its Cash-for-Clunkers program. We wanted to get the economy going so we offered to subsidize car purchases for anyone who could turn in an old car. The justification was that we could get the gas-guzzlers off the road and revive the economy at the same time. BUT: we didn't have a gas-efficient model ready for the market. So all we did was replace old gas guzzlers with new gas guzzlers.

Dumb programs are worse than no programs because they waste money and discredit the conversion process.

Doug

Edited May 15, 2013 by Doug1029

[keithisco]

The short-term problem with climate change is that we humans have invested a huge amount in the status quo. Rising sea level is not a problem if nobody lives near the coast. But that's exactly where most of us live.

It's not a problem if you don't eat food grown in the southern Great Plains. But over the course of their lives nearly all Americans will consume about 40 acres of wheat grown exactly there. And that area is already en route to becoming a desert and will probably get there in the next drought cycle.

The deforestation of the American West has already begun. We are in the midst of several major bark beetle epidemics brought on by warmer winter temps. And that will mean lumber, paper and housing will cost more. So don't complain about prices.

What the big-business-propagandists aren't telling you is that replacing our current power systems with more-efficient ones (like wind) will REDUCE costs, not increase them. Same with energy conservation. You don't have to switch to hydrogen powered vehicles if you don't want to, but they will likely be cheaper to operate than gasoline powered ones (Those folks in the McDonald's drive-through with their engines running are expressing their opinion that gas prices aren't high enough yet.).

For you Brits: I got to wondering why wind power costs so much over there. Think I figured it out: you use windmills with small fans and you don't put them up high enough. Small fans are less efficient (Think: more money for less power.) and wind is not as strong closer to the ground, so you generate less power with what you do put up. What I think happened is that the government jumped the gun on converting to wind. The politicians wanted to create the impression that they were doing something, so they started putting up windmills without properly researching the issue first. As a result, you're paying for something works poorly.

The US did the same thing with its Cash-for-Clunkers program. We wanted to get the economy going so we offered to subsidize car purchases for anyone who could turn in an old car. The justification was that we could get the gas-guzzlers off the road and revive the economy at the same time. BUT: we didn't have a gas-efficient model ready for the market. So all we did was replace old gas guzzlers with new gas guzzlers.

Dumb programs are worse than no programs because they waste money and discredit the conversion process.

Doug

Actually not right, the UK has many 60 metre turbines ( the largest produced) and the Electricity produced is no more expensive than Coal Fired Energy production.

Here in Spain, we regularly produce more than 50% of all electrical requirements via wind turbines ( and solar Cells).Germany is well on the way to the same results.

[Doug1029]

Actually not right, the UK has many 60 metre turbines ( the largest produced) and the Electricity produced is no more expensive than Coal Fired Energy production.

That's not setting your sights very high. The target should be natural gas. Get your wind costs below that of gas.

What is the proportion of large vs. small fans? The US has some small fans, too, but not very many and those are being replaced with larger ones when they wear out.

Another thought here: generate SURPLUS electricity with wind and use that surplus to make hydrogen gas by electrolysis. Use the hydrogen to run generators when the grid is not supplying enough power. Don't need hydrocarbons at all that way.

Doug

[doppleganger2015]

Good ol, HAARP

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Good ol, HAARP

That tells a lot.

[Whisperer]

I think the most significant contributor to Climate change is uncontrolled population growth, which places demands on resources which see's forests destroyed, species die, species overpopulate, disease run rampant, polution out of control, significant gases releas3ed by 'breathing and farting' etc...

So hold your breath and dont eat beans....

[spud the mackem]

I am rather sceptical about Humans causing climate warm up because of the following. Volcano's blowing off. When Mount St.Helens blew it threw a few million tons of dust into the atmosphere which went around the world and took about 3 years to dissipate,this caused a blanket effect,now there is 6 volcano's all spewing out millions of tons of ash and dust miles up into the air, also causing a blanket effect.We are not causing Volcano's to erupt its an act of nature,We may be causing a small percentage of obnoxious gases to escape into the air but nothing like as much as a Volcano can do in a few days..As for cars well its been proved that one Jumbo Jet crossing the Atlantic one way emits more obnoxious gas into the air than 260 cars emit in a year.We cannot alter the course of Nature but we can try to minimise the risk of pollution,by quite a few energy use alternatives , such as create a few more forests instead of decimating trees . I think a greater risk to the planet is disposing of spent Nuclear waste.

[Guest]

I am rather sceptical about Humans causing climate warm up because of the following. Volcano's blowing off. When Mount St.Helens blew it threw a few million tons of dust into the atmosphere which went around the world and took about 3 years to dissipate,this caused a blanket effect,now there is 6 volcano's all spewing out millions of tons of ash and dust miles up into the air, also causing a blanket effect.We are not causing Volcano's to erupt its an act of nature,We may be causing a small percentage of obnoxious gases to escape into the air but nothing like as much as a Volcano can do in a few days..As for cars well its been proved that one Jumbo Jet crossing the Atlantic one way emits more obnoxious gas into the air than 260 cars emit in a year.We cannot alter the course of Nature but we can try to minimise the risk of pollution,by quite a few energy use alternatives , such as create a few more forests instead of decimating trees . I think a greater risk to the planet is disposing of spent Nuclear waste.

Simply factually wrong.

Man contributes vastly more CO2 than all the volcanoes put together.

The main effect of volcanoes is through sulphates and particulates which are both coolers of the environment.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO₂ budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO₂ is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO₂, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO₂ tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO₂ is large, the global fossil fuel CO₂ emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO₂ not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

As I said you are simply factually wrong.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 26, 2013 by Guest