Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Ocean1]

Then the news reports are even more alarmist than the actual IPCC report. Its no wonder the public are turning off.

You can't be right, it doesn't fit with mushbrains' plan.

And he was SO looking forward to the end of the world.

[Jantar]

OK, some examples. The report claims that a further "increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century" is to be expected. The papers say that no extinctions can be blamed on climate change to date, and that the data is too sparse to make any predictions going forward. (Kinzelbach, 2012).

[Jantar]

the WG1 report was unable to put a number on climate sensitivity, but gave a range from 1.5 - 4.5, and could be as low as 1.2 (the number I've always gone with). This would mean a temperature rise of only 1 - 1.5 C by 2100 from pre industrial times.

the WGII report is using temperature rises of 1.5 to 2.5 C and basing the claims of ocean pH on a CO2 conc of
5000 ppm.

I'm still reading and I've got another 187 papers to go at around 1 hour per paper.

[Jantar]

Oh, another minor point:

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

◾Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ous-warmer-te/

[BoristheBiter]

As part of the literature review for my PHD my climate advisor suggested I read the IPCC report and then the papers it references. I have had an advance copy for a couple of weeks, and am still working through the literature. However the language and threats raised in the WGII report do not reflect what the scientific papers are saying.

Then the news reports are even more alarmist than the actual IPCC report. Its no wonder the public are turning off.

I heard this on the radio today and they said "we are going to have 1 in 100 floods every year and water shortages"

Dumb shit like that and the fact they keep changing the reports to suit the ideology of the day is why people have tuned out.

[mashman]

The other side

Thanks for that. So is it out and out lies or just the language that is being used? We're not tuning out at all, we're merely looking for the truth. Nigh on impossible given the array of reports and papers and lack of confirmable knowledge that is put forwards as truth. I think a lot of people are looking at it from the point of view that if the caps melt, sea levels will rise. It is possible. When, is only important if we intend to do anything about it, which we don't look to be doing... so it doesn't help when the experts say we don't know and the propaganda machine pumps out what is labelled as alarmist by any side. As "we" are not on any given side "we" are left to fill in the blanks. Given that blank padding we deal with what we know i.e. is a thing possible, yes, it is probable, maybe, are we doing anything about it, no, should we just in case, yes.

What are we expected to do? Wait until there is data available?

[SPman]

Oh, another minor point:

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

◾Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ous-warmer-te/

One of the 70 authors of a draft UN report on climate change said he had pulled out of the writing team because it was "alarmist" about the threat.

Richard Tol told Reuters he disagreed with some findings of the summary to be issued in Japan on 31 March.
"The drafts became too alarmist," the Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England said by telephone from Yokohama, Japan, where governments and scientists are meeting to edit and approve the report.
But he acknowledged some other authors "strongly disagree with me".

.......

Another expert criticised Tol, saying his IPCC chapter exaggerated possible benefits.
"Of the 19 studies he surveyed only one shows net positive benefits from warming. And it's the one he wrote," said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Unit on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...eport-alarmist

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-change-risks

[scrivy]

Watched this the other week..... interesting....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

[carbonhed]

One of the 70 authors of a draft UN report on climate change said he had pulled out of the writing team because it was "alarmist" about the threat.

Richard Tol told Reuters he disagreed with some findings of the summary to be issued in Japan on 31 March.
"The drafts became too alarmist," the Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England said by telephone from Yokohama, Japan, where governments and scientists are meeting to edit and approve the report.
But he acknowledged some other authors "strongly disagree with me".

.......

Another expert criticised Tol, saying his IPCC chapter exaggerated possible benefits.
"Of the 19 studies he surveyed only one shows net positive benefits from warming. And it's the one he wrote," said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Unit on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...eport-alarmist

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-change-risks

Bob Ward? You're really quoting Bob Ward???

You know how much you hate Cameron Slater aka Whaleoil? Bob Ward is the alarmist camps Whaleoil... except that he's paid to be Whaleoil.

The "Summary for Policymakers" is where the science gets put through the blender of politics... read the science... like Jantar does.

[Jantar]

... I think a lot of people are looking at it from the point of view that if the caps melt, sea levels will rise. It is possible. ....
What are we expected to do? Wait until there is data available?

There is data available already. Its how that data is used or abused that is part of the problem.

Have a look at these Antarctic temperatures http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarc...le_mcmurdo.htm

And these Arctic ones Here http://www.windows2universe.org/eart...er_arctic.html or here http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The DMI record is for the polar sea ice region, and if sea ice melts the sea levels will not change. For the polar caps to even start melting the average global temperature will have to increase by at least 30C. At a climate sensitivity of 1.2 that would require a CO2 conc of 280 x 2^25 ppm. As the entire atmosphere is 10^6 ppm it is quite obvious that this is an impossible number to reach.
If global temperatures were to rise enough to cause the polar caps to melt then something other than CO2 conc must be the cause.

[cc rider]

Had a shit few weeks, so happy to take the blame for global whatever & other stuff


I 'll be over there not giving a rats...

[avgas]

What global warming? Its nearly April and it just decided to snow over here randomly.
I think climate change is the better term. The only global warming happening is when all the greenies smoke a big doob.

[cc rider]

There's a dooby???

[avgas]

There's a dooby???

Was. Was a dooby. Now we have global warming. Talk about a come-down.

[Ocean1]

If global temperatures were to rise enough to cause the polar caps to melt then something other than CO2 conc must be the cause.

Not to mention the least of anyone's worries...