On the failure of alarmism!!!

[Old Rocks]

And then there is Harvard

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/program...te Change and Health in the United States.pdf

CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES

The Earth is warming due to fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Over the past 30 years the world has warmed faster and more extensively than any time period recorded in ice cores. By the end of this century, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international collaboration involving over 2,500 scientists, projects that average global temperature will increase between 2.5°F and 9°F, creating a climate never before experienced by humans. This document summarizes the health impacts of climate change in the U.S. and has been reviewed by Harvard Medical School faculty who specialize in the health impacts of global environmental change, with degrees in medicine and public health.

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH RELEVANT TO HEALTH OUTCOMES IN THE UNITED STATES

Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have already, and will continue to, change the climate in the U.S.

Temperatures have risen throughout the U.S. over the past 3 decades, with nighttime and winter temperatures rising twice as fast as average warming (Easterling et al. 1997).

Heavier precipitation events are becoming more frequent.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, daily rain events 2”, 4” and 6” rose 14%, 20% and 27%, respectively (Groisman & Knight 2008).

More winter precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow, increasing risks of ice storms (IPCC 2007).

The ocean is the engine for climate change (warming and changing weather patterns).

Since 1950, the world’s oceans have accumulated 22 times as much heat as has the atmosphere (Levitus et al. 2005)
.
MAJOR HEALTH EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES

More respiratory disease, heart disease and death from heatwaves are projected.

From 1979-2003, extreme heat exposure killed more people in the U.S. than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, lightning and earthquakes combined (SCEIGW 2006).

Heatwaves disproportionately affect children, the elderly and the chronically ill.

The 10-day Chicago heatwave (June 1995) resulted in 738 excess deaths (Semenza et al. 1996). 1/3 of 58 patients admitted with heat stroke had severe neurological impairment that did not improve after 1 year (Dematte et al., 1998).

The frequency, duration and extent of heatwaves are projected to increase.

By the end of this century, Chicago is projected to experience 25% more heat waves – and LA up to 400% more – annually (UCS 2009).

Climate change increases the lethality of heatwaves due to disproportionate rise in nighttime temperatures and higher humidity.

Heat-trapping (greenhouse) gases elevate nighttime temperatures more so than daytime temperatures and warm air holds more water vapor.

The “urban heat island effect” from heat retention by pavement and buildings makes cities up to 7°F warmer than surrounding regions. Nighttime temperatures are even higher.
Northern city residents are especially vulnerable due to greater warming at high latitudes.

Ground-level ozone, local accumulation of CO2 and black carbon (soot) – all byproducts of burning fossil fuels – amplify the urban heat island effect.

Black carbon is a newly recognized contributor to global warming; it traps heat in the atmosphere and settles in ice and snow, increasing the heat uptake (Ramanathan & Carmichael 2008).

 

[gslack]

I use the noaa, nws, nasa, uah, rss, hadley center, scienfitic edu and peer reviewed papers. Yes I do use skeptical science as most of that is based on the peer reviewed stuff and heavy math based. maybe a little real climate. Sure old rocks uses those sites, but what is that data based off of and what context? Is it based off some far off opinion of something they wish was true or a scientific journal that they report on?

I'm someone that respects the skeptical scientist within the science of climate. How much will more low clouds reflect back into space instead of warming the planet, or maybe where is the ohc that was rising during the 1990's. I believe of course that 1# I believe that it was a poorly set up system of buoy's in the 90s to comparing to a much better system, we use today starting in 2004 may of caused this. Never raised that fast any ways. 2# How about the grand minimum solar cycle=less energy into the oceans.

NO what he (oldsocks) does is take the scary headlines he gets from Greenpeace or EarthFIrst! and uses the charts and crap they point to and parrot their claims without even checking. Just like most algorian gaia worshipers. They do not need to think, they have uber smart people to think for them and the uber smart people are all on their side... Sure ...

BTW, your attempt to use another small part of a bigger climate driver AGAIN is telling.. If you will not accept that one thing will not drive nor change climate on its own (barring some drastic change in the sun be it orbital, geomagnetic, or thermal) than why all the pretense? You wanted to point to solar cycles and the site and the data there should have shown you the complexities of the suns effect on our climate, but instead you just picked out another little part and said see there's my proof... No matt its not proof of anything on its own and that was the entire reason I gave you that link.

You claim to get it but you either don't or refuse to. You cannot point to one thing and call it a reason or excuse for or against climate change. Be it CO2 or the Sun. The Sun is the largest contributor, followed by the orbital relationships with us and other celestial bodies in our solar system and then galaxy. Not to forget the solar system and galaxies respective orbital relationships in our section of the universe. And our atmosphere make up, composition including cloud cover, geomagnetic strength and all other manners of factors both known and unknown.

Climate has one constant. And that is change. It changes, always has and always will. If a rise in a trace gas helps it, or if the sun gets hotter, closer or farther away, or if our poles flip, or the solar system moves closer to Andromeda or the cloud cover drops drastically, it will change and that is that. Blaming a trace gas alone or the suns low point in a grand minimum solar cycle alone are not sufficient enough (barring some major solar catastrophe) to point to and say its evidence on its own for either side of the debate.

Jesus, What I'm saying is we're within one of those grand minimums right now and that "co2" maybe the positive forcing that is stopping the cooling that we would have if it was just the natural cycles. Of course there is natural cycles. Why can't it be co2 causing the positive forcing that's stopping the natural cooling is what I'm asking you? We both agree on the cycles and how they warm and cool the planet.

I doubt you will ever accept that co2 may cause warming, but then you have to answer to why a grand minimum hasn't been able to cool our planet; while the ones in the past from your link has clearly been able to do so.

It can be both the SUN and C02 or some other effect of such. WE live in a complex system.

No matt, what you are doing is taking one thing and saying this is the thing. It's no different than taking Co2 and doing it.

Right now scientists see in 8 bit color, soon we may reach 16 bit color, and hopefully 24 and then 32 bit color. Ever tried to look at a picture on a 8 bit or 16 bit color depth when its supposed to be higher bit? Kinda dull and not very clear is it.... Same holds true in science especially in regards to something as dynamic as climate. Until the picture is clearer and the bit depth correct we can't call the picture one way or another.

For instance, the UV radiation and climate model effects was mentioned on that site as well. Along with Cosmic rays and cloud coverage. AND it also mentioned why the IPCC fails in their predictions... As well as other things that all tell us one thing. here is a lot to this a lot more than a simple finger point and a cry of "eureka i have done it" can dismiss.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now I can post article after article from various universities concerning observed and predicted effects from Global Warming. Can you post any from such universities that support your viewpoint?

 

[gslack]

There are 97 published climatologists in the world. 95 of the state that global warming is real, and caused by GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps. The other, Dr. Lindzen, is not senile, but publically soiled by his testimony concerning tobacco and denial of the observed effects of the warming.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

Now, G-string, you can flap yap all you care to, but without presenting any real facts and observations for your opinion, you simply portray yourself as a simpleton of a Know-Nothing.

HUSH GREENPEACE TOOL!

I bet you spike trees...

You seriously earlier tried to negate NASA claims with Wikkipedia, then you used a greenpeace website to attack a MIT Professor and expert. WOW, you really don't care about the science at all unless its science you agree with.

You have no ability to recognize science, you just recognize what you agree with. Thats not science so please spare me the nonsense.. When YOU start showing real evidence and facts that are NOT biased and self promoting, you can make the claim. Until then you haven't the credibility to get the benefit of the doubt on anything you post.

Actually, I like to use MIT papers. Here is just one.

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Reprint07-9.pdf

NET EMISSIONS OF CH4 AND CO2 IN ALASKA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
REGION’S GREENHOUSE GAS BUDGET
Q. ZHUANG,1,4 J. M. MELILLO,1 A. D. MCGUIRE,2 D. W. KICKLIGHTER,1 R. G. PRINN,3 P. A. STEUDLER,1
B. S. FELZER,1
AND S. HU
1
1The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 USA
2U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA
3Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT E40-271, 77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA

Abstract.

We used a biogeochemistry model, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM), to study the net methane (CH4) fluxes between Alaskan ecosystems and the atmosphere. We estimated that the current net emissions of CH4 (emissions minus consumption) from Alaskan soils are ;3 Tg CH4/yr. Wet tundra ecosystems are responsible for 75% of the region’s net emissions, while dry tundra and upland boreal forests are responsible for 50% and 45% of total consumption over the region, respectively. In response to climate change over the 21st century, our simulations indicated that CH4 emissions from wet soils would be enhanced more than consumption by dry soils of tundra and boreal forests. As a consequence, we projected that net CH4 emissions will almost double by the end of the century in response to high-latitude warming and associated climate changes. When we placed these CH4 emissions in the context of the projected carbon budget (carbon dioxide [CO2] and CH4) for Alaska at the end of the 21st century, we estimated that Alaska will be a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere of 69 Tg CO2 equivalents/yr, that is, a balance between net methane emissions of 131 Tg CO2 equivalents/yr and carbon sequestration of 17 Tg C/yr (62 Tg CO2 equivalents/

Oh really? So then why did you think the one that was against your BS was so bad? Dude you are a liar and a hypocrite... Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, G-String, you are giving yap-yap, and getting real scientific site in return. Where are your sites?

 

[Old Rocks]

From the University of Washington

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~aaron/docs/Torn.Harte06_vostok_GRL.pdf

Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation
of future warming

Margaret S. Torn1,2 and John Harte3

Received 19 December 2005; revised 17 March 2006; accepted 24 March 2006; published 26 May 2006.

[1] Historical evidence shows that atmospheric greenhouse gas (GhG) concentrations increase during periods of warming, implying a positive feedback to future climate change. We quantified this feedback for CO2 and CH4 by combining the mathematics of feedback with empirical icecore information and general circulation model (GCM) climate sensitivity, finding that the warming of 1.5–4.5
C associated with anthropogenic doubling of CO2 is amplified to 1.6–6.0
C warming, with the uncertainty range deriving from GCM simulations and paleo temperature records.

Thus, anthropogenic emissions result in higher final GhG concentrations, and therefore more warming, than would be predicted in the absence of this feedback. Moreover, a symmetrical uncertainty in any component of feedback, whether positive or negative, produces an asymmetrical distribution of expected temperatures skewed toward higher temperature. For both reasons, the omission of key positive feedbacks and asymmetrical uncertainty from feedbacks, it is likely that the future will be hotter than we think.
Citation: Torn, M. S., and J. Harte (2006), Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L10703, doi:10.1029/ 2005GL025540.

 

[Old Rocks]

From Stanford

Global Warming and Agriculture - Climate & Energy - Woods Institute

When it comes to nature, timing is everything. Spring flowers depend on birds and insects for pollination. But if spring-like weather arrives earlier than usual, and flowers bloom and wither before the pollinators appear, the consequences could be devastating for both the plants and the animals that feed on them.


Global warming has made the early arrival of spring commonplace across the planet, say climate scientists. Plants are blooming earlier, birds are nesting sooner and mammals are breaking hibernation earlier than they were a few decades ago.


Understanding how global warming altered the timing of natural cycles in the past can provide important insights about the impact of climate change in the future, said Woods Institute Center Fellow Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford.


"In recent years, there has been quite a bit of work in phenology, which is the study of the timing of lifecycles – when do birds migrate, trees drop their leaves, crops mature, etc.," Diffenbaugh said. "Many of these natural events are tied to the climate."


Using a very high-resolution computer model, Diffenbaugh's research group has conducted a new experiment that uses phenological observations from the past to project future impacts of global warming at local and regional scales. "Our experiment is unprecedented," he said. "It's the first time that a climate model has been applied at such spatial and temporal detail over such a long period of time."


The experiment focuses on the regional impact of climate change on agriculture in the United States over the next three decades, from wine grapes on the West Coast to maple syrup in the Northeast. Diffenbaugh presented his 30-year forecast at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) on Dec. 17, 2009, in San Francisco

 

[gslack]

Scientific discourse with a known and proven liar and fraud? Why bother? You want me to stop thinking and using my mind and just get into to a link posting match with you? LOL why do that? Oh thats right, you don't think and can't argue logically, all you can do is post what scientists say on Greenpeace sites got it...

Why don't you apologize for A: lying, B: short quoting, C: false claims about scientists,D: giving false impressions and claims about a quote, site, and or link, or what is said by others. E: For calling every scientist who disagrees with AGW theory quack, hack, shill, on the take etc, etc.. F: for crying for only science from others and yet dismissing anything and everything they bring with insults, lies, false accusations, misrepresenting facts and claims, and being a general unethical weasel.

You do that and maybe I will humor you again, until then mr. flexible ethics you will get nothing but my disdain. You sir have time and again proven to be too dishonest to even attempt proper discourse or debate with.

 

[westwall]

skook, would explaining the data and facts within a scienfitic manner be a better way to inform the public?

1# Point out the difference of tsi and global temperature
2# Ask what forcing is causing the warming because the sun is not causing it.
3# Explain that co2 is just part of the puzzle that is causing temperature change--There is negatives like sulfur, ect and there are postives like co2 that are pushing to warm the planet. The surplus of energy is what warms the planet.
4# What is causing the surplus?
5# If it is co2 then how much warming will occur.

Would this make public care?

Your question is essentially irrelevant. Sorry but it really is dude............

Even if a huge majority cared ( which they dont) then what?

Then what s0n?

76 trillion to go green ( not my #....the UN's #)

And lets say you could pull the world together and get that ( lol.....you couldnt get 1/10th of that ), not one person on the face of the planet can say with ANY level of certainty that it would make a shit worth of difference.

Your points are moot.........


It is this fact, and this fact alone that enables people to ascribe the term "k00ks" to alarmists. Its like a long bearded guy in the local psych ward sitting in front of the nurses station telling people he is in fact Jesus and is running the government from his room via morse code. You could try to reason with him I guess but I have a hunch the efforts just might be a wee bit fruitless.

Don't forget it's 76 trillion to MAYBE lower the temperature of the world by 1 degree...in a 100 years.

 

[gslack]

Come on, G-String, you are giving yap-yap, and getting real scientific site in return. Where are your sites?

So are you a current member or have you ever been a member of or affiliated in any way with GreenPeace, EarthFirst!, or any other eco/environmentalist activist group?

Answer the simple question man..

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, G-String, you are giving yap-yap, and getting real scientific site in return. Where are your sites?

So are you a current member or have you ever been a member of or affiliated in any way with GreenPeace, EarthFirst!, or any other eco/environmentalist activist group?

Answer the simple question man..

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

skook, would explaining the data and facts within a scienfitic manner be a better way to inform the public?

1# Point out the difference of tsi and global temperature
2# Ask what forcing is causing the warming because the sun is not causing it.
3# Explain that co2 is just part of the puzzle that is causing temperature change--There is negatives like sulfur, ect and there are postives like co2 that are pushing to warm the planet. The surplus of energy is what warms the planet.
4# What is causing the surplus?
5# If it is co2 then how much warming will occur.

Would this make public care?

Your question is essentially irrelevant. Sorry but it really is dude............

Even if a huge majority cared ( which they dont) then what?

Then what s0n?

76 trillion to go green ( not my #....the UN's #)

And lets say you could pull the world together and get that ( lol.....you couldnt get 1/10th of that ), not one person on the face of the planet can say with ANY level of certainty that it would make a shit worth of difference.

Your points are moot.........


It is this fact, and this fact alone that enables people to ascribe the term "k00ks" to alarmists. Its like a long bearded guy in the local psych ward sitting in front of the nurses station telling people he is in fact Jesus and is running the government from his room via morse code. You could try to reason with him I guess but I have a hunch the efforts just might be a wee bit fruitless.

Don't forget it's 76 trillion to MAYBE lower the temperature of the world by 1 degree...in a 100 years.

Which is your normal bullshit. The numbers have been done by real scientists that reach a far differant conclusion.

The most detailed report into the financial consequences of global warming was the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, this was compiled in 2006 by Lord Stern for the UK Treasury.

Here are the key findings in respect of costs...

• The present losses due to global warming are $600 billion a year

• If global warming continues at the present rate then it will cost $1.1 trillion a year by 2100

• The rate of warming is accelerating and if the scientist's forecasts for the future are correct then it will cost between $1.2 and $3.0 trillion a year by the end of the century [1]

• In the worst case scenario the cost could be up to $12 trillion a year by 2100

• The cost to stabilise emissions is $600 billion a year

There's an executive summary here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executiv…

The cost of doing nothing

[1] At the time the report was written the forecast was that temperatures could increase between 2°C and 5°C by the end of the century. Improved modelling now suggests that the figure is more likely to be between 2.5°C and 4°C and so the cost would be between $1.5 trillion and $2.4 trillion a year.

Note: The Stern Review does not quote costs in terms of actual currency but in terms of GDP. The global GDP is $61.1 trillion and thus a 1% drop in GDP represents a ~$600 billion cost.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, G-String, you are giving yap-yap, and getting real scientific site in return. Where are your sites?

So are you a current member or have you ever been a member of or affiliated in any way with GreenPeace, EarthFirst!, or any other eco/environmentalist activist group?

Answer the simple question man..

Now your turn, gslack. What affilitions have you had? Or is it too much to ask of you?

And did you ever finish the third grade?

 

[gslack]

Come on, G-String, you are giving yap-yap, and getting real scientific site in return. Where are your sites?

So are you a current member or have you ever been a member of or affiliated in any way with GreenPeace, EarthFirst!, or any other eco/environmentalist activist group?

Answer the simple question man..

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

Mensa? HHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You got a genius IQ like I Have a knighthood in the works... LOL

Sure ya do socks sure ya do.

 

[Old Rocks]

So are you a current member or have you ever been a member of or affiliated in any way with GreenPeace, EarthFirst!, or any other eco/environmentalist activist group?

Answer the simple question man..

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

Mensa? HHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You got a genius IQ like I Have a knighthood in the works... LOL

Sure ya do socks sure ya do.

You asked.

And I guess I can assume that you did not finish the third grade. That is the level of scientific comprehension that you display.

 

[gslack]

Come on, G-String, you are giving yap-yap, and getting real scientific site in return. Where are your sites?

So are you a current member or have you ever been a member of or affiliated in any way with GreenPeace, EarthFirst!, or any other eco/environmentalist activist group?

Answer the simple question man..

Now your turn, gslack. What affilitions have you had? Or is it too much to ask of you?

And did you ever finish the third grade?

Well thats easy, Little league, Babe Ruth League, PFS (a few seminars back in the 90's paul vunak and dan inosanto are geniuses and bruce lee? forget about it..), The GOV (work as a contractor), My MOM, My DAD, and I did all of it PDQ...

Look tool, when you see me posting from a NEO-NAZI site you can ask me if I am affiliated with the neo nazis, and if i make a habit of it, then you can make some pretty safe assumptions, but since thats not the case here, you really got nothing do ya.. LOL

YOU on the other hand DO post habitually from green and eco/enviro AGW sites, and your continued blind support to the point of lying and all around dishonesty, allows me to make some of my own assumptions.

I think you are either a Greenpeace nut, or a EarthFirst! nut. You can dismiss honesty at the drop of a hat so its not a belief with you, its an obsession. There's a difference ya know...

 

[Old Rocks]

Lol

 

[gslack]

Lol

I don't have to insult you anymore tool.... You did it far better than I ever could.... MENSA...

 

[skookerasbil]

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

Mensa? HHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You got a genius IQ like I Have a knighthood in the works... LOL

Sure ya do socks sure ya do.

You asked.

And I guess I can assume that you did not finish the third grade. That is the level of scientific comprehension that you display.

Scientific comprehension doesnt matter s0n.............

Nobody is about to launch into a spending effort of 76 trillion based upon a hail mary pass guess. Its not politically viable and thats just the way it is. Perhaps if the real scientists didnt get caught fcukking with the data all those times, things might be marginally different...........but even then, its pie in the sky. Same concept as the government addressing the problem with social security you hear about in the news...........nothing is going to be done about it in 2011. Write it down.

Its called absolute certitude............gotta accept it s0n!!

 

[westwall]

Your question is essentially irrelevant. Sorry but it really is dude............

Even if a huge majority cared ( which they dont) then what?

Then what s0n?

76 trillion to go green ( not my #....the UN's #)

And lets say you could pull the world together and get that ( lol.....you couldnt get 1/10th of that ), not one person on the face of the planet can say with ANY level of certainty that it would make a shit worth of difference.

Your points are moot.........


It is this fact, and this fact alone that enables people to ascribe the term "k00ks" to alarmists. Its like a long bearded guy in the local psych ward sitting in front of the nurses station telling people he is in fact Jesus and is running the government from his room via morse code. You could try to reason with him I guess but I have a hunch the efforts just might be a wee bit fruitless.

Don't forget it's 76 trillion to MAYBE lower the temperature of the world by 1 degree...in a 100 years.

Which is your normal bullshit. The numbers have been done by real scientists that reach a far differant conclusion.

The most detailed report into the financial consequences of global warming was the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, this was compiled in 2006 by Lord Stern for the UK Treasury.

Here are the key findings in respect of costs...

• The present losses due to global warming are $600 billion a year

• If global warming continues at the present rate then it will cost $1.1 trillion a year by 2100

• The rate of warming is accelerating and if the scientist's forecasts for the future are correct then it will cost between $1.2 and $3.0 trillion a year by the end of the century [1]

• In the worst case scenario the cost could be up to $12 trillion a year by 2100

• The cost to stabilise emissions is $600 billion a year

There's an executive summary here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executiv…

The cost of doing nothing

[1] At the time the report was written the forecast was that temperatures could increase between 2°C and 5°C by the end of the century. Improved modelling now suggests that the figure is more likely to be between 2.5°C and 4°C and so the cost would be between $1.5 trillion and $2.4 trillion a year.

Note: The Stern Review does not quote costs in terms of actual currency but in terms of GDP. The global GDP is $61.1 trillion and thus a 1% drop in GDP represents a ~$600 billion cost.

First off how did they arrive at a cost of 600 billion a year to do nothing? There is NOTHING in the paper that describes it. Just computer model (yes, more of those) hand waving. No empirical data is presented.

In other words a farce.