Martin W

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 696 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Other side of debate #4523
    Martin W
    Participant

      So OK, the OISM has adopted pooh-poohing warming as a cause, after starting w some highly dodgy right wing US Christian views – note the sourcewatch article re books saying nuclear bombs not so bad really, and flogging material like old edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica for serious money.
      Might be allied to kinds of people who build museums w dinosaurs pulling carts and so forth. See, eg, re idiocy and “gut” views over science etc: Greetings from Idiot America.

      Anyways, there is no scientific debate re validity of global warming; just as no scientific debate re earth being round, earth going round sun, evolution, plate tectonics, gravity…
      Any such “debate” – in absence of alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny, explains observations (and my “dr” is for phys chem, real hard science, so I have some notions re theories) – is bogus and diversionary.

      It would be nice to think global warming’s just a matter of opinion; nice to continue with illusion this is just a “debate”, which is really somewhat trivial, or that reality can change depending on your political or religious viewpoint.
      Sadly, that’s not the case.

      Evidence is strong and building that warming is an issue. For instance:

      Quote:
      a new analysis in Nature that paints a dark portrait of what a warming world will look like in the years to come.

      The researchers assessed 829 geologic phenomena—including melting glaciers—along with nearly 30,000 changes in plants and animals (from bird migration patterns to plummeting penguin populations), and found that about 90 percent of them are in sync with scientists’ predictions about how global warming will alter the planet.

      http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=man-made-warming-altering-natures-clock

      There is, however, plenty of scope for debate re what we do about warming.
      Big Fat Nothing seems the general consensus, despite some fine words.

      We can fight terrorists real and imaginary and so forth, respond – when allowed to – to disasters as they happen; yet here we are, overwhelmed by this issue. And in too many cases, just in denial, heads thrust firmly in sand, sometimes clinging too tightly to keys to the SUV.

      in reply to: Other side of debate #4520
      Martin W
      Participant

        Oh dear, I see Earth has a cold has a prominent link to guff re the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

        :S

        nuff said, I think.

        in reply to: Global warming threatens biodiversity #4384
        Martin W
        Participant
          Quote:
          Fewer caribou calves are being born and more of them are dying in West Greenland as a result of a warming climate, according to Eric Post, a Penn State associate professor of biology. Post, who believes that caribou may serve as an indicator species for climate changes including global warming, based his conclusions on data showing that the timing of peak food availability no longer corresponds to the timing of caribou births.

          caribou are unable to keep pace with certain changes that have occurred as a result of global warming. When the animals arrive at their calving grounds now, pregnant females find that the plants on which they depend already have reached peak productivity and have begun to decline in nutritional value. According to Post, the plants — which initiate growth in response to temperature, not day length — are peaking dramatically earlier in response to rising temperatures. “Spring temperatures at our study site in West Greenland have risen by more than 4 degrees Celsius over the past few years,” said Post. “As a result, the timing of plant growth has advanced, but calving has not.”

          Global Warming Linked To Caribou-calf Mortality

          in reply to: ESPN Star Sports Cricket Sometimes Live #4503
          Martin W
          Participant

            Sent Now TV another stroppy missive re their crappy “live” cricket channel, where it seems live tv has vanished lately.
            Had reply, inc this schedule for forthcoming matches that will be shown.

            Quote:
            England v New Zealand Test
            (3 Tests, 1 Twenty20 and 5 One-Day Internationals)

            May 2008

            ICC Asia Cup

            June 2008

            England v South Africa Test
            (4 Tests, 1 Twenty20 and 5 One-Day Internationals)

            July – September 2008

            Australia v Bangladesh
            (2 Tests, and 3 One-Day Internationals)

            August – September 2008

            ICC Champion’s trophy

            Sept 2008

            Australia v New Zealand
            (2 Test, 5 One-Day Internationals, 1 Twenty20)

            November 2008

            Australia v South Africa
            (3 Tests, 5 One-Day Internationals)

            December 2008 – January 2009

            ICC World Cup Qualifier

            April 2009

            England v Zimbabwe
            (2 Tests, 3 One-Day Internationals)

            May – June 2009

            Twenty20 World Cup

            May 2009

            Emailed back, saying:
            Well, this looks better.

            But still hardly inspired.
            I’m interested in the England – NZ/S Africa matches over the summer. Not too excited by schedule for coming winter.

            Seems there are no cricket fans working at the channel.

            in reply to: Global warming solutions? – geo-engineering? PV cells? #4338
            Martin W
            Participant
              Quote:
              A proposed solution to reverse the effects of global warming by spraying sulfate particles into Earth’s stratosphere could make matters much worse, climate researchers said on Thursday.

              They said trying to cool off the planet by creating a kind of artificial sun block would delay the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by 30 to 70 years and create a new loss of Earth’s protective ozone layer over the Arctic.

              “What our study shows is if you actually put a lot of sulfur into the atmosphere we get a larger ozone depletion than we had before,” said Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, whose research appears in the journal Science.

              Plan to reverse global warming could backfire

              in reply to: Global warming is well underway #4320
              Martin W
              Participant

                From a bloomberg item:

                Quote:
                Global warming is hitting the Arctic harder and faster than scientists expected, causing unforeseen changes to the frigid region’s ice, wildlife, atmosphere and oceans, the conservation group WWF said.

                The most prominent differences observed over the last three years include a “massively accelerated” decline in summer sea ice and “much greater” shrinking of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the environmental campaign group, known in the U.S. as the World Wildlife Fund, said in a 123-page report today.

                “We’re seeing more rapid temperature-warming,” Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, said by phone. The best explanation is “a trigger from greenhouse gases,” he said. Scambos wasn’t involved in the WWF report.

                Global Warming Is Affecting Arctic Faster, WWF Says

                in reply to: Global warming forecasts: disasters, diseases #4361
                Martin W
                Participant

                  So, you thought the future looked grim in Terminator?
                  From report in Daily Telegraph:

                  Quote:
                  Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two World Wars which will last for centuries unless it is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned.

                  The Royal United Services Institute said a tenfold increase in research spending, comparable to the amount spent on the Apollo space programme, will be needed if the world is to avoid the worst effects of changing temperatures.

                  The report said: “If climate change is not slowed and critical environmental thresholds are exceeded, then it will become a primary driver of conflicts between and within states.”

                  It added: “Climate impacts will force us into a radical rethink of how we identify and secure our national interests. For example, our energy and climate security will increasingly depend on stronger alliances with other large energy consumers, such as China, to develop and deploy new energy technologies, and less on relations with oil producing states.

                  “No strategy for long run peace and stability in Afghanistan can possibly succeed unless local livelihoods can survive the impact of a changing climate on water availability and crop yields.”

                  ‘Tenfold R&D rise needed for climate change’

                  in reply to: Bush the anti-scientist and global warming obfuscation #4405
                  Martin W
                  Participant

                    Bush has finally announced something like plans re warming, right in the twilight of his presidency. Woeful stuff, though:

                    Quote:
                    President Bush has been criticised by environment groups after he called for a halt to the growth of US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 but offered few ideas on how to achieve it.

                    The proposal on global warming, which fell short of European proposals, was announced as the US Congress prepares to consider more ambitious plans and before international climate change negotiations take place in Paris.

                    Mr Bush offered only broad principles, such as focusing on emissions from the power industry, and rejected new taxes, abandoning nuclear power and trade barriers.

                    President Bush’s environment plans criticised

                    in reply to: Global warming forecasts: disasters, diseases #4360
                    Martin W
                    Participant

                      from BBC site:

                      Quote:
                      Sea levels could rise by up to one-and-a-half metres by the end of this century, according to a new scientific analysis.

                      This is substantially more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast in last year’s landmark assessment of climate science.

                      The new analysis comes from a UK/Finnish team which has built a computer model linking temperatures to sea levels for the last two millennia.

                      “For the past 2,000 years, the [global average] sea level was very stable, it only varied by about 20cm,” said Svetlana Jevrejeva from the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL), near Liverpool, UK.

                      “But by the end of the century, we predict it will rise by between 0.8m and 1.5m.

                      “The rapid rise in the coming years is associated with the rapid melting of ice sheets.”

                      Forecast for big sea level ri

                      in reply to: I don’t believe wild birds are spreading h5n1 #3764
                      Martin W
                      Participant

                        Another paper out in continuing hunt for the Tooth Fairy Bird (which can survive and sustain and spread H5N1 poultry flu). Experiments showed that Mallard may be a candidate species; but other ducks, such as Tufted Duck, liable to die when infected, so maybe sentinels. I’ve just posted to aiwatch group:

                        Quote:
                        I’m not so up to speed re wild ducks etc n h5n1 – after all, seems to me the story is so often the same old same old; here we have more of the search for the Tooth Fairy BIrd, with suggestion it might exist (as a mallard) but not actually found. I recalled work by Webster n co – leading Tooth Fairy Bird chasers! – which involved H5N1 that was virulent to mallard. I’ve the paper someplace, but easier to google for quick info; and find: "In laboratory experiments in mallard ducks, it rapidly shifted from being potentially fatal to causing only asymptomatic infections. Nevertheless, it remained highly virulent to domestic chickens and, presumably, to people. A resilient wild waterfowl, such as the mallard, could therefore become a permanent biological reservoir for a strain of avian flu with pandemic-causing potential."

                        I wonder, then, re the strain used in the newer TF Bird experiments: not quite the same as some strains, inc used by Webster. Once again, we have evolution to the rescue. I know virologists – many of them – don’t believe in it, instead looking to mutations and mixing, but not evolving; don’t really know why this is: too busy peering into microscopes to see wider pictures? Again: a virus getting from poultry farms to wild will evolve to low pathogenicity in wild birds (as Webster’s rather simple experiments showed – simple compared to the wild that is). I’d like to again ask: has there been anything like the effort expended in blaming wild birds used to assess the situation re official and unofficial poultry trade? – or is the situation that, with poultry trade and friends having the main money for H5N1 research, the funding tends to go into areas that can point finger of blame away from poultry industry? So far, silence re this.

                        You can find the paper re Mallard etc at: http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/4/600.htm

                        in reply to: Global warming is well underway #4318
                        Martin W
                        Participant

                          From the Observer:

                          Quote:
                          The world’s glaciers are melting faster than at any time since records began, threatening catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people and their eco-systems.

                          The details are revealed in the latest report from the World Glacier Monitoring Service and will add to growing alarm about the rise in sea levels and increased instances of flooding, avalanches and drought.

                          Based on historical records and other evidence, the rate at which the glaciers are melting is also thought to be faster that at any time in the past 5,000 years, said Professor Wilfried Haeberli, director of the monitoring service. ‘There’s no absolute proof, but nevertheless the evidence is strong: this is really extraordinary.’

                          Experts have been monitoring 30 glaciers around the world for nearly three decades and the most recent figures, for 2006, show the biggest ever ‘net loss’ of ice. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told The Observer that melting glaciers were now the ‘loudest and clearest’ warning signal of global warming.

                          The problem could lead to failing infrastructure, mass migration and even conflict. ‘We’re talking about something that happens in your and my lifespan. We’re not talking about something hypothetical, we’re talking about something dramatic in its consequences,’ he said

                          Glaciers melt ‘at fastest rate in past 5,000 years’

                          Martin W
                          Participant

                            Here’s another idea – note, too, re how little effort being put into seeing if may be viable, compared to politicians wandering the planet spouting hot air on the issue.

                            Quote:
                            Professor Stephen Salter, a renowned engineer working at Edinburgh University, has hatched a plan to produce white clouds over the ocean to halt the catastrophic water heating associated with global warming.

                            In the worst-case scenario, where global “tipping points” such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap are reached, he claimed launching a fleet of cloud-producing drone ships could save Earth.
                            advertisement

                            Salter, who is famed for inventing the “duck”, a device that generates power by bobbing on waves, said: “We’ve got an explosive with the detonator in it, and when one goes off, it could trigger other explosives. That’s why we need to have a number of solutions. I don’t mean that we should continue burning coal and then just fix the consequences, that would be terrible. Just as a revolver has many bullets, we need several ideas.”

                            Salter’s idea, which he formed in collaboration with John Latham, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, is to build boats to sail the ocean and produce a spray of tiny water droplets around which white clouds can form. He suggested that around 400 of these wind-powered boats would be needed, at a cost of £100 million. However, the difficult part would be producing droplets small enough for clouds to form, a technique Salter has yet to master. His struggle has been a lonely one so far, and he holds little faith in government.

                            Salter said: “In the UK, there is one old aged pensioner, me, and one PhD student in Leeds working on cloud control, and that is it. Then there are politicians travelling the world, holding meetings to say how awful it is and the only outcome is that they organise another meeting to say the same.”

                            Cloud-making plan to reverse global warming
                            Edinburgh University professor advocates revolutionary response to crisis

                            Martin W
                            Participant

                              Seems to me there are good ‘ol boys attitudes among the global warming deniers.
                              GM’s vice chairman, Bob Lutz, has lately exemplified these:

                              Quote:
                              General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a “total crock of shit,” saying his views had no bearing on GM’s commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

                              Lutz, GM’s outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

                              GM exec stands by calling global warming a ‘crock’

                              in reply to: Global warming lies and climate change hysteria #4496
                              Martin W
                              Participant

                                It seems there’s some sort of contest among US right wingers to see who can stoop the lowest in writing the crassest hyperbole regarding global warming. CBS should be ashamed of hosting an opinion piece I’ve come across. Includes:

                                Quote:
                                creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming “crisis.” They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis. … Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?

                                – latter seems deeply ironic, given the dearth of actual scientists saying global warming isn’t an issue, and the paucity of facts supporting their case.

                                Quote:
                                The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times. The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

                                – this shows that the buffoon penning the piece has no notion re facts; CO2 levels have been rising for some time, greenhouse effect (warming) was predicted before temperatures shown to be rising. Cold Water on "Global Warming" National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts

                                in reply to: Global warming threatens biodiversity #4383
                                Martin W
                                Participant

                                  further threats to Antarctic biodiversity:

                                  Quote:
                                  Unique marine life in Antarctica will be at risk from an invasion of sharks, crabs and other predators if global warming continues, scientists warn.

                                  Crabs are poised to return to the Antarctic shallows, threatening creatures such as giant sea spiders and floppy ribbon worms, says a UK-US team.

                                  Some have evolved without predators for tens of millions of years.

                                  Bony fish and sharks would move in if waters warm further, threatening species with extinction, they say.

                                  In the last 50 years, sea surface temperatures around Antarctica have risen by 1 to 2C, which is more than twice the global average.

                                  Warming risks Antarctic sea life

                                  in reply to: Global warming threatens biodiversity #4382
                                  Martin W
                                  Participant

                                    Following on from above post, comes this news on National Geographic website:

                                    Quote:
                                    King penguins near the Antarctic may be on a perilous path to extinction as a result of global warming, new research suggests.

                                    Populations of the large birds on Possession Island in the Indian Ocean’s Crozet Archipelago are declining as sea temperatures warm and the birds are forced to travel longer distances to find food.

                                    In recent years, many of the prey species have died or migrated as the ocean warms and the algae that those animals eat are impacted.

                                    Warming temperatures also force fish to swim into cool waters farther away from the island, causing penguins to travel greater distances to hunt. The longer time away from home reduces chick feedings, the researchers found.

                                    So during years when seas become warmer, penguins do not breed as successfully, Le Maho and colleagues found.

                                    At the edge of the sea ice, where penguin adults forage during winter, just a 0.47 degree Fahrenheit (0.26 degree Celsius) increase resulted in a 9 percent decrease in the population two years later.

                                    King Penguins Declining Due to Global Warming

                                    in reply to: Birds inc magpie robin in Hong Kong w H5N1 #4055
                                    Martin W
                                    Participant

                                      After perhaps six dead herons or egrets and a dead common buzzard found in Hong Kong and shown to have H5N1 this winter, I posted this to HK Birdw Soc forum:

                                      Indeed intriguing re just how these herons/egrets have been infected.

                                      If not scavenging bird corpses (with Grey Heron before, I’ve wondered re scavenging dead chickens tossed into creeks),
                                      then perhaps from water – but why so few individuals, why not ducks (which we know can readily catch n spread wild bird flus – Anatidae evidently being chief reservoirs of these wild flus)?
                                      From fish, with sufficient virus in stomachs?? (maybe after eating poultry manure, offal from infected poultry?)

                                      in reply to: ESPN Star Sports Cricket Sometimes Live #4502
                                      Martin W
                                      Participant

                                        I emailed Now TV with comment rather as above; reply here:

                                        Quote:
                                        With regards to your message, we are sorry that the series of England vs
                                        New Zealand is under our now TV coverage. Rest assured that your
                                        valuable feedback has already been channeled back to relevant department
                                        for further review in order to improve our service level and provide
                                        customers with the best possible service in future.

                                        For your information, the Tri-Nation series in Australia and also the
                                        “ICC Under-19 Cricket World cup” are available on now TV.

                                        in reply to: ESPN Star Sports Cricket Sometimes Live #4501
                                        Martin W
                                        Participant

                                          My main int team is England; recently played series in Sri Lanka, now in New Zealand – yet none of the matches aired on the rather crappy ESPN Star Sports Cricket “Live” (haha) channel. Just turned on lest today’s 20-20 match shown – but no, was yet another repeat.

                                          This month, get some international matches from Australia, plus bunch of domestic matches from Australia (kind of ok if nothing of higher level to show, but that’s not the case), and under 19 “world cup” (inc Papua New Guinea team).
                                          Might be ok if a cheap channel – but get charged a premium price; premium price should merit premium content.

                                          in reply to: Damage to global environment could pass point of no return #4511
                                          Martin W
                                          Participant

                                            Post I’ve just made to NY Times; responding to article on Cato Institute report along lines of Lomborg’s utterances: warming willl have bad consequences, but we’ll become so much richer that no need to do anything to stop them.
                                            Here, inc my belief that notions v wrong; could be economic tipping point, too, closing our window of opportunity to actually do anything re warming.

                                            Quote:
                                            After reading much info re warming, I’ve come to believe that if we dither re action now (not sure why the dithering – fear?), we’ll find ourselves so busy dealing with the consequences, devoting so many resources to them, that will become unable to really tackle causes of global warming.

                                            Witness, say, the tornadoes that just struck the US: can’t say for sure that a result of warming, but the kind of thing predicted, and which we’re likely to see more of. Response needed.

                                            Increase frequency of such weather disasters – and organisations like OXfam already reporting significant increases – and could find it’s like trying to put out one fire after another, without energy/resources to tackle problems that have made many of those fires occur.

                                            But, maybe a minority will be rich, relatively insulated; and Cao happy to pander to their ilk.

                                            in reply to: Damage to global environment could pass point of no return #4510
                                            Martin W
                                            Participant

                                              Here’s a summary of key tipping points – or “tipping elements” as they’re called here, in climate systems:

                                              Quote:
                                              Anthropogenic forcing could push the Earth’s climate system past critical thresholds, so that important components may “tip” into qualitatively different modes of operation. In the renowned magazine “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS) an international team of researchers describes, where small changes can have large long-term consequences on human and ecological systems.

                                              “Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change,“ the researchers around Timothy Lenton from the British University of East Anglia in Norwich and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research report. Global change may appear to be a slow and gradual process on human scales. However, in some regions anthropogenic forcing on the climate system could kick start abrupt and potentially irreversible changes. For these sub-systems of the Earth system the researchers introduce the term “tipping element”.

                                              Drawing on a workshop of 36 leading climate scientists in October 2005 at the British Embassy, Berlin, Germany, a further elicitation of 52 experts in the field, and a review of the pertinent literature, the authors compiled a short-list of nine potential tipping elements. These tipping elements are ranked as the most policy-relevant and require consideration in international climate politics.

                                              Arctic sea-ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are regarded as the most sensitive tipping elements with the smallest uncertainty. Scientists expect ice cover to dwindle due to global warming. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably less sensitive as a tipping element, but projections of its future behavior have large uncertainty. This also applies to the Amazon rainforest and Boreal forests, the El Niño phenomenon, and the West African monsoon. “These tipping elements are candidates for surprising society by exhibiting a nearby tipping point,” the authors state in the article that is published in PNAS Online Early Edition. The archetypal example of a tipping element, the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, could undergo a large abrupt transition with up to ten percent probability within this century, according to the UN climate report from 2007.

                                              Given the scale of potentially dramatic impacts from tipping elements the researchers anticipate stronger mitigation. Concepts for adaptation that go beyond current incremental approaches are also necessary. In addition, “a rigorous study of potential tipping elements in human socio-economic systems would also be welcome,” the researchers write. Some models suggest there are tipping points to be passed for the transition to a low carbon society.

                                              Highly sensitive tipping elements, smallest uncertainty:

                                              Greenland Ice Sheet – Warming over the ice sheet accelerates ice loss from outlet glaciers and lowers ice altitude at the periphery, which further increases surface temperature and ablation. The exact tipping point for disintegration of the ice sheet is unknown, since current models cannot capture the observed dynamic deglaciation processes accurately. But in a worst case scenario local warming of more than three degrees Celsius could cause the ice sheet to disappear within 300 years. This would result in a rise of sea level of up to seven meters.

                                              Arctic sea-ice – As sea-ice melts, it exposes a much darker ocean surface, which absorbs more radiation than white sea-ice so that the warming is amplified. This causes more rapid melting in summer and decreases ice formation in winter. Over the last 16 years ice cover during summer declined markedly. The critical threshold global mean warming may be between 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, but could already have been passed. One model shows a nonlinear transition to a potential new stable state with no arctic sea-ice during summer within a few decades.

                                              Intermediately sensitive tipping elements, large uncertainty:

                                              West Antarctic Ice Sheet – Recent gravity measurements suggest that the ice sheet is losing mass. Since most of the ice sheet is grounded below sea level the intrusion of ocean water could destabilize it. The tipping point could be reached with a local warming of five to eight degrees Celsius in summer. A worst case scenario shows the ice sheet could collapse within 300 years, possibly raising sea level by as much as five meters.

                                              Boreal forest – The northern forests exhibit a complex interplay between tree physiology, permafrost and fire. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could lead to large-scale dieback of the boreal forests within 50 years. Under climate change the trees would be exposed to increasing water stress and peak summer heat and would be more vulnerable to diseases. Temperate tree species will remain excluded due to frost damage in still very cold winters.

                                              Amazon rainforest – Global warming and deforestation will probably reduce rainfall in the region by up to 30 percent. Lengthening of the dry season, and increases in summer temperatures would make it difficult for the forest to re-establish. Models project dieback of the Amazon rainforest to occur under three to four degrees Celsius global warming within fifty years. Even land-use change alone could potentially bring forest cover to a critical threshold.

                                              El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – The variability of this ocean-atmosphere mode is controlled by the layering of water of different temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and the temperature gradient across the equator. During the globally three degrees Celsius warmer early Pliocene ENSO may have been suppressed in favor of persistent El Niño or La Niña conditions. In response to a warmer stabilized climate, the most realistic models simulate increased El Niño amplitude with no clear change in frequency.

                                              Sahara/Sahel- and West African monsoon – The amount of rainfall is closely related to vegetation climate feedback and sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean. Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to increase Sahel rainfall. But a global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could cause a collapse of the West African monsoon. This could lead either to drying of the Sahel or to wetting due to increased inflow from the West. A third scenario shows a possible doubling of anomalously dry years by the end of the century.

                                              Indian summer monsoon – The monsoon circulation is driven by a land-to-ocean pressure gradient. Greenhouse warming tends to strengthen the monsoon since warmer air can carry more water. Air pollution and land-use that increases the reflection of sunlight tend to weaken it. The Indian summer monsoon could become erratic and in the worst case start to chaotically change between an active and a weak phase within a few years.

                                              Lowly sensitive tipping elements, intermediate uncertainty:

                                              Atlantic thermohaline circulation – The circulation of sea currents in the Atlantic Ocean is driven by seawater that flows to the North Atlantic, cools and sinks at high latitudes. If the inflow of freshwater increases, e.g. from rivers or melting glaciers, or the seawater is warmed, its density would decrease. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could push the element past the tipping point so that deep water formation stops. Under these conditions the North Atlantic current would be disrupted, sea level in the North Atlantic region would rise and the tropical rain belt would be shifted.

                                              Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system

                                              in reply to: Peak Oil – are we there yet? #4325
                                              Martin W
                                              Participant
                                                Quote:
                                                World demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within seven years, according to Royal Dutch Shell. The oil multinational is predicting that conventional supplies will not keep pace with soaring population growth and the rapid pace of economic development. Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, said in an e-mail to the company’s staff this week that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. He wrote: “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.” The boss of the world’s second-largest oil company forecast that, regardless of government policy initiatives and investment in renewables, the world would need more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil sands. “Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue,” he wrote.

                                                The Times: Shell chief fears oil shortage in seven years

                                                in reply to: Experts on wild birds not major h5n1 carriers #3976
                                                Martin W
                                                Participant

                                                  Quite a turnaround here for FAO, after chief vet Joseph Domenech so readily blamed wild birds for spreading H5N1:

                                                  Quote:
                                                  There is no solid evidence that wild birds are to blame for the apparent spread of the H5N1 virus from Asia to parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East, an animal disease expert said on Wednesday.

                                                  There was also no proof that wild birds were a reservoir for the H5N1 virus, Scott Newman, international wildlife coordinator for avian influenza at the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, said at a bird flu conference in Bangkok.

                                                  “We know that some wild birds have probably moved short distances carrying viruses and then they died, but we have not been able to identify carriage of H5N1 across large scale spatial distances and then resulting in spread to other birds and mortality in poultry flocks,” Newman told Reuters.

                                                  He said fecal tests on some 350,000 healthy birds worldwide had to date only yielded “a few” positive H5N1 results.

                                                  Furthermore, in instances and places where wild birds were found with the disease, there were no concurrent outbreaks of the virus in poultry.

                                                  “So we don’t have at this point in time a wildlife reservoir for H5N1 … so they can’t be a main spreader of the disease,” Newman said.

                                                  He stressed the need to focus attention on the poultry trade, and particularly smuggling, adding that these factors may instead be spreading and sustaining the deadly disease.

                                                  Don’t blame wild birds for H5N1 spread: expert

                                                  in reply to: Global warming forecasts: disasters, diseases #4359
                                                  Martin W
                                                  Participant

                                                    Report from Oxford Research Group forecast climate change problems could include serious security consequences (civil unrest, intercommunal violence, and international instability). V brief summary:

                                                    Quote:
                                                    Climate change will have serious environmental, socio-economic and security consequences for both developed and developing nations alike. This report explores these consequences and demonstrates that they will present new challenges to governments trying to maintain domestic stability.

                                                    An Uncertain Future: Law Enforcement, National Security and Climate Change

                                                    in reply to: More hurricanes as result of global warming? #4498
                                                    Martin W
                                                    Participant

                                                      I’ve seen that numbers of west Pacific typhoons may decrease with global warming – as wind shear increases, so it’s harder for them to form. Now, first news I’ve noticed that maybe this will be true for Atlantic – albeit contentious. Must still wonder if warmer seas will lead to more strong storms (ie, powerful trop cyclones) – ie once they start forming, tend to become powerful, maybe fast.

                                                      Quote:
                                                      Global warming could reduce how many hurricanes hit the United States, according to a new federal study that clashes with other research. The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how man-made global warming may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes. In it, researchers link warming waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States. Wind shear — a change in wind speed or direction — makes it hard for hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive. So that means "global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States," according to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Miami Lab and the University of Miami. … Critics say Wang’s study is based on poor data that was rejected by scientists on the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They said that at times only one in 10 North Atlantic hurricanes hit the U.S. coast and the data reflect only a small percentage of storms around the globe.

                                                      Study: Warming May Cut US Hurricane Hits

                                                      in reply to: Global warming is well underway #4317
                                                      Martin W
                                                      Participant

                                                        This recalls post above, re Oxfam saying numbers of weather related disasters have increased.

                                                        Quote:
                                                        The international Red Cross said on Monday it will refocus its budget and aid appeals for the coming year to better meet the growing threat of climate change and associated natural disasters.

                                                        IFRC secretary general Markku Niskala said that the number of weather-related natural disasters, such as droughts and floods, has risen to around 400 each year in the last two years, from an average of 200 per year in the last decade.

                                                        “Climate change is also having a very real and very worrisome impact on water supplies, on food production and even on health crises,” he said.

                                                        Red Cross refocuses aid budget on threat of climate change

                                                        in reply to: Global warming lies and climate change hysteria #4495
                                                        Martin W
                                                        Participant

                                                          An especially crass piece on some US website, Town Hall – by a guy who has no science background, but was lately "a litigator in high profile entertainment matters" – gets it completly wrong re warming, figuring the issue’s only about politics [it’s real if your a leftie: bizarre notion to me]. Not just hysteria, but paranoia as well; and profound, worrying ignorance about the world we live in – where actions do have consequences that can’t b willed away just because you wish the world was a certain way. Includes:

                                                          Quote:
                                                          The Democrats (a.k.a. global warming wimps) have found the rhetorical weapon they will use for at least the next decade to decrease your liberty while increasing their power, and that weapon is the hysteria over global warming. … Environmental doomsaying is one of the most powerful tactics that liberals use to obtain and wield power. At its heart, the Democrat Party is a coalition of interest groups that feed at the trough of the government. The more power the politicians and bureaucrats have, the more contracts and benefits the groups can gobble up. … Everything you do has a carbon footprint and could be regulated by the government. If the Democrats have their way, you could face new limits on what you eat for breakfast, the way you travel to work, the computer on which you read Townhall.com, the medicines you take, the clothes you wear, the DVDs you watch, everything – everything! “Carbon footprint” is code for limitless government intrusion into every detail of your life.

                                                          Global Warming: The All-Purpose Farce to Control Your Life

                                                          in reply to: Global warming is well underway #4316
                                                          Martin W
                                                          Participant

                                                            I’ve seen claims re Antarctic ice increasing, supposedly showing global warming isn’t really such an issue. Contradicted by this research.

                                                            Quote:
                                                            The western part of Antarctica is shedding ice much faster today than it was just ten years ago, according to new satellite measurements.

                                                            The measurements, which surveyed the coasts of nearly the entire continent, suggest that climate models underestimate how quickly Antarctica responds to ongoing global warming, said study co-author Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol in England.

                                                            They found that for Antarctica overall, the ice loss increased about 75 percent over the ten-year period, from 112 gigatons of ice per year in 1996 to 196 gigatons of ice per year in 2006.

                                                            As to whether Antarctica will lose or gain ice as global warming proceeds, the measurements disagree with existing climate models that suggest “[the ice sheet] is going to get bigger because of increased snowfall with warming temperatures,” Bamber said.

                                                            “We don’t see that. We see the ice sheet losing mass,” he said. “So there’s a bit of a paradigm shift in what the ice sheet has done recently and what it could do in the future.”

                                                            Scientists are concerned the melting ice will contribute to a dangerous sea level rise.

                                                            The “most likely explanation” for the increased ice loss is that warming waters are melting away ice at the grounding point, according to Bamber.

                                                            Antarctica Ice Loss Faster Than Ten Years Ago

                                                            in reply to: Global warming threatens biodiversity #4381
                                                            Martin W
                                                            Participant

                                                              Polar Bears International website has good info countering claims that polar bear populations are increasing so no worries for them with global warming.

                                                              Quote:
                                                              Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Edmonton in Canada. He also serves on PBI’s Scientific Advisory Council.

                                                              The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.

                                                              The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

                                                              After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased.

                                                              There is, however, very strong evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the condition of polar bears. A decline in condition was the precursor to the population decline in Western Hudson Bay. There is clear suggestion of a population decline due to over-harvest in Baffin Bay, Kane Basin and possibly Norwegian Bay.

                                                              Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem.

                                                              Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.

                                                              Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

                                                              in reply to: Global warming lies and climate change hysteria #4494
                                                              Martin W
                                                              Participant

                                                                Here's another letter I've sent the South China Morning Post, responding to letter from Viscount Monckton.

                                                                Quote:
                                                                Dear Sir: It was interesting to see that Viscount Monckton of Benchley – who once wrote an article titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", recommending quarantine for all HIV carriers – has written to the South China Morning Post, attempting to put the editors right regarding global warming.

                                                                Sadly, Monckton fails to muster arguments that make his case. Claiming global surface temperatures have not risen in a statistically significant sense since 2001, he omits to mention that NASA ranks 2005 the warmest year in over a century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently reported that "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”

                                                                Plus, in seeking a trend over just six years, Monckton has tumbled into his own trap of lacking statistical significance. The warming trend is clearly upwards, and the latest data suggests the rise is faster than previously estimated.

                                                                Monckton also refers to apparent anomalies in temperatures recorded in the tropical upper troposphere, and states that from these we now know that the relatively minor warming that ceased (sic) in 2001 was largely not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Here, he ignores the large errors in upper troposphere temperature measurements. And – as so often with global warming "sceptics" – he ignores the mountain of scientific publications that show global warming resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is real and significant, and cherry picks from the molehill of science that suggests otherwise.

                                                                In concluding that no imposts should be inflicted upon us unless we are told how much they will cost and how much effect they will have, Monckton reveals his narrow knowledge of global warming. The IPCC has forecast that measures to mitigate the worst impacts of global warming could slow global GDP growth by an average of 0.12 percentage points. The Post was correct to write of a “planetary emergency”.

                                                                We are all effectively locked in a test tube, in surely the greatest experiment man has ever performed. If the worst projections come true, this will mean the transformation of life as we know it: a dire, apparently sci-fi scenario, yet a succession of news reports tell us of warming-related events that are unfolding at a startling pace. This is not a time for debating and waiting and seeing, but for action.

                                                                Yours faithfully, Dr Martin Williams

                                                                More on Monckton being untrustworthy, in a letter from the Clerk of Parliament no less, reproduced on Climate Shifts; includes:

                                                                Quote:
                                                                My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

                                                                In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.

                                                                I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords.

                                                                Monckton. Member of the House of Lords?

                                                              Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 696 total)