Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

[stignasty]

Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

Last Updated: Sunday, April 1, 2007 | 12:05 AM ET

CBC News

First, the good news on climate change: A minimal heat rise means increased food production in northern regions of the world.

But after that it's all downhill, according to a chart in the second major report on the controversial topic, due to be released Friday in Belgium.

The number of species going extinct rises with the heat, as does the number of people who may starve, or face water shortages or floods, according to the projections in the draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

Some scientists are calling the chart's degree-by-degree projection a "highway to extinction."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/31/climate-report.html

[geoffrey]

But I thought it was climate change. That is, things are changing, differently, everywhere. Who knows, maybe the climate will adjust to benefit the endangered species of the world.

In fact, no one has a freakin' idea what's happening.

Like those in danger-of-warming polar bears... who's populations are rapidly increasing.

[B. Max]

Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

Last Updated: Sunday, April 1, 2007 | 12:05 AM ET

CBC News

Some scientists are calling the chart's degree-by-degree projection a "highway to extinction."

Sounds more like an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Only Hitchcock has more credibility. Once again we see wild claims and no evidence. In fact if there is any evidence they are doing everything possible to hide it.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

[stignasty]

Once again we see wild claims and no evidence.

The final document will be the product of a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists as authors and reviewers, along with representatives of more than 120 governments as last-minute editors.

It will be the second volume of a four-volume authoritative assessment of Earth's climate being released this year. The last such effort was in 2001.

[Argus]

Once again we see wild claims and no evidence.

The final document will be the product of a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists as authors and reviewers, along with representatives of more than 120 governments as last-minute editors.

It will be the second volume of a four-volume authoritative assessment of Earth's climate being released this year. The last such effort was in 2001.

What a waste of paper. The true believers don't need it. Those who don't believe will laugh and sneer at it because of how politics influenced the report. I'm in the middle. I believe in global warming. I am unconvinced it is because of emissions. I do not trust so-called scientific reports which are clearly being influenced by politics and alarmist activist groups.

[BubberMiley]

I believe in global warming. I am unconvinced it is because of emissions. .

I believe in AIDS, but I am unconvinced it is because of unprotected sex.

[leonardcohen]

Once again we see wild claims and no evidence.

The final document will be the product of a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists as authors and reviewers, along with representatives of more than 120 governments as last-minute editors.

It will be the second volume of a four-volume authoritative assessment of Earth's climate being released this year. The last such effort was in 2001.

I have a deep distrust of any report that emanates from the U.N.

I am not impressed by the numbers,the original report would be interesting to see,

and i'll draw my own conclusions,thank you.

There is no telling how many times and in what ways the first draft

has been changed to suit their foregone conclusions.

[shoggoth]

There is no telling how many times and in what ways the first draft

has been changed to suit their foregone conclusions.

Yes there is:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Doc_3rev.pdf

The changes proposed are mainly clarfifications, and the proposed changes had to go through the scientific authors again to make sure they reflect the science before being accepted.

[BubberMiley]

The changes proposed are mainly clarfifications, and the proposed changes had to go through the scientific authors again to make sure they reflect the science before being accepted.

Still, the truth has never been an excuse not to undermine the messenger before.

[B. Max]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...91-E3975CBB96CB

Lindzen Says UN IPCC does not Reflect Thousands of Scientists – Only a Dozen or so Scientists:

Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

[Canadian Blue]

If Climate Change is real, how do you explain the icicles in Buffalo?

I say to you, surely icicles in Buffalo refutes all Scientific input that Climate Change is real.

[B. Max]

If Climate Change is real, how do you explain the icicles in Buffalo?

I say to you, surely icicles in Buffalo refutes all Scientific input that Climate Change is real.

I wouldn't worry to much about it. Gores twenty foot sea level rise will take care of them.

[Argus]

I believe in global warming. I am unconvinced it is because of emissions. .

I believe in AIDS, but I am unconvinced it is because of unprotected sex.

Reading the cite shows an actual scientist trying to point out the lack of scientific basis behind this to the "personalities" who are the main proponents of global warming as a world crisis. It's quite sad to see really.

Noting, that none of you, while mocking the opposition, actually seem to be addressing any of the points in the cite.

[Argus]

If Climate Change is real, how do you explain the icicles in Buffalo?

I say to you, surely icicles in Buffalo refutes all Scientific input that Climate Change is real.

Who is denying climate change? As the scientist in the cite pointed out "Of course the climate is changing, it is always changing".

The question is why and how much.

[newbie]

The true believers don't need it. Those who don't believe will laugh and sneer at it because of how politics influenced the report. I'm in the middle. I believe in global warming. I am unconvinced it is because of emissions. I do not trust so-called scientific reports which are clearly being influenced by politics and alarmist activist groups.

Now I'm a little confused Argus. You say this recently, The more I see things like this the more I think the whole Kyoto global warming thing is little more than a big scam propagated by morons and idiots.

So which is it?

[jbg]

Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

Last Updated: Sunday, April 1, 2007 | 12:05 AM ET

CBC News

First, the good news on climate change: A minimal heat rise means increased food production in northern regions of the world.

But after that it's all downhill, according to a chart in the second major report on the controversial topic, due to be released Friday in Belgium.

The number of species going extinct rises with the heat, as does the number of people who may starve, or face water shortages or floods, according to the projections in the draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

Some scientists are calling the chart's degree-by-degree projection a "highway to extinction."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/31/climate-report.html

What sheer and biased BS!!!

Climate is cyclical. My belief in climate cycles is well known. Expanding on the issues of "cycles", my bet is that if we are in a warming now, it's cyclical. There's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ("PDO") and sunspot/solar forcing cycles (long term), North Atlantic Oscillation a/k/a Arctic Oscillation (quasi-long term), El Nino Southern Oscillation ("ENSO") (the familiar short-term El Nino and La Nina) cycles. These all have an impact and interplay with each other to produce cycles. Sometimes, such as during 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9 they all come together to produce a calamitous seeming cooling. Then, the "chicken littles" cluck about global cooling. Other times, such as during 1988-9, 1990-1, 1991-2, and 1997-8 they all come together to produce a calamitous seeming warming. Then, the "chicken littles" cluck about global warming.

Now, when there are cold events, such as record setting snows in NYC, or Halifax's "White Juan", some people, a few of whom are "chicken littles" call it "climate change", as if there's never been a big windstorm or snowstorm before.

I prefer analysis to emotion.

Read below (excerpts) You should check link for some striking graphs relating to some of these cycles that won't post (link) :

====================================================================

North Atlantic Oscillation and year-to-year plankton fluctuations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jean-Marc Fromentin

LOBEPM. Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers. Station Zoologique, B.P. 28. 06230 Villefranche sur mer. France.

Benjamin Planque

Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science. The laboratory, Citadel Hill. Plymouth PL1 2PB. United Kingdom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This study investigates a link between a large-scale atmospheric phenomenon, the North Atlantic Oscillation1-4, and fluctuations in the abundance of zooplankton species. Since copepods are the major component of the northeast Atlantic and North Sea zooplankton5-6, we focused on two dominant species: Calanus finmarchicus and C. helgolandicus. Long-term variations in abundance of these two species are closely associated with the state of this oscillation, although their responses to the NAO are opposite. We suggest that the relationship between the NAO and the two Calanus species results from three main processes: (i) alterations in the stratification of the surface layer that modify the spring phytoplankton bloom7-8, (ii) variations in sea surface temperature, and (iii) changes in interspecific competition. Finally it is hypothesized that the North Atlantic Oscillation plays, in the the North Atlantic, a comparable role to the El Niño Southern Oscillation, on pelagic ecosystems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is an alternation of air mass that occurs between the subtropical region (centred on the Azores), and the subpolar region (centred on Iceland). The state of NAO determines the speed and direction of the westerlies across the North Atlantic as well as temperatures on both sides of this ocean1-4, during winter and early spring. A high NAO pattern is characterised in the northeast Atlantic by a reinforcement of the westerlies that are pushed further south, and hence by warmer winter temperatures than normal. On the contrary, a low NAO pattern is typical of a weakening of the westerlies that are moved far north from their average position, and by colder winter temperatures. Recently, Greenland ice cores data have revealed large decadal climate variations over the North Atlantic that can be related to the NAO9. It also appears that the persistence of an exceptionally strong positive phase of the NAO seems to be the source of recent temperatures anomalies and changes in atmospheric moisture transport10. Thus, the NAO is a large scale atmospheric phenomenon analogous to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). These developments and previous studies4,11-15 that showed the influence of the ENSO on Pacific pelagic ecosystems, raise the question: does the NAO influence the pelagic ecosystems of the North Atlantic?

We investigated the connections between the NAO and zooplankton from long-term monitorings of meteorological and plankton data. The NAO index indicates the state of this oscillation, a positive index corresponding to a high NAO pattern and a negative index to a low NAO pattern. Sea surface temperatures (SST) and west wind stress component (WWS) data were provided by the Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set.

The plankton data were collected by the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey (CPR)16, a routine monthly synoptic survey of plankton in the North Atlantic and North Sea. We studied two copepods species, Calanus finmarchicus and C. helgolandicus, which contitute the major component of the Northeast Atlantic and North Sea zooplankton5-6, in terms of biomass, abundance and trophic role, and which fulfil a similar function in the ecosystem. Our purpose was to examine the specific responses of these two species to that large scale phenomenon. We analysed long-term and year-to-year changes in abundance of the two Calanus species from 1962 to 1992, on a large area of the Northeast Atlantic, where the CPR sampling intensity was adequate. (emphasis supplied by JBG)

*snip*

[speaker]

I thought that a site like this might help people get some of the basics about global warming, other than that I'd encourage everyone to watch the red herrings trying to swim upstream.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ming-faq.html#2

[jbg]

I thought that a site like this might help people get some of the basics about global warming, other than that I'd encourage everyone to watch the red herrings trying to swim upstream.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ming-faq.html#2

Panic, overstatement, more panic and more overstatement.

[stignasty]

I thought that a site like this might help people get some of the basics about global warming, other than that I'd encourage everyone to watch the red herrings trying to swim upstream.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ming-faq.html#2

Not that it will make any difference. Those who have made up their minds that there is no global warming (or that we're not accelerating it) will not be swayed.

Here's another good site: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

[jbg]

Yet more sci-fi.

[Argus]

The true believers don't need it. Those who don't believe will laugh and sneer at it because of how politics influenced the report. I'm in the middle. I believe in global warming. I am unconvinced it is because of emissions. I do not trust so-called scientific reports which are clearly being influenced by politics and alarmist activist groups.

Now I'm a little confused Argus. You say this recently, The more I see things like this the more I think the whole Kyoto global warming thing is little more than a big scam propagated by morons and idiots.

So which is it?

I believe things are getting a little warmer, ie, I believe in global warming, but Global Warming (note capitals) is almost a trademark for the hysterical activist set who think we should all go back to living in caves. But I have always questioned the value and cost of Kyoto. And the more I read about stuff like this the more I think the science behind it is social science, ie something put together by a bunch of sociology and psychology grads.

[speaker]

Hi Stignasty, ya, I have had a look at that one, For anyone interested in getting answers that's a good place to go.

Argus, it is more likely that the activist set don't want to go back to a prehistoric cave lifestyle and can read the writing on the wall. Unless we accept the need to minimize our impacts on the planet those who find caves may be the lucky ones.

In a situation like this I don't mind at all if the sociologists get involved in helping us design a more comprehensive and effective Kyoto accord. Or alternative energy businesses, or firemen, or farmers, or artists. At this point I think we need all the help we can get so Welcome to all of them.

[Keepitsimple]

This is just getting ridiculous. In the Toronto Star today, they published an IPCC grim forecast that included the following:

The report summarizes the probable effects on people and the environment arising from the increase of 2 to 3 degrees C in average temperatures by 2050 forecast in the panel's first climate science study released in February.

Link:http://www.thestar.com/News/article/198439

2-3 degrees by 2050? And IPCC says that warming is accellerating for a variety of reasons. That would mean that by the end of the century, we'd be well over 6 degrees celsius and if you take into account the "accelleration" that they keep warning us about - it should be much higher by then. But in fact, their own last assessment says that:

World temperatures could rise by anything between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 and 11.52°F) during the 21st century.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#IPCC_Fou...ent_Report:_AR4

So...this new report takes the absolute extreme range of the IPCC "estimate" and tries to draw a picture to serve their alarmist objectives. What utter claptrap. Even their own "best guess" as to what will really occur puts the likelihood of warming at about 2 degrees celcius.

How much longer can the public actually believe these wild stories before we finally get down to admitting there is another side of the argument? Legions of scientists accept that Climate Change is occurring (who wouldn't) but that humans only play a part - we cannot stop it. What is open for debate is how much we actually contribute and whether we can make any definitive difference - over and above being responsible stewards of our planet.

[shoggoth]

2-3 degrees by 2050?

Remember the northern latitudes are expected to warm more than the global average (as they are doing at the moment). The warming by 2100 (given as 1.4 to 5.8°C in the new report) is the global average. The higher latitudes will probably be more than that. So they may be refering specifically to expected temepratures around canada.

[B. Max]

2-3 degrees by 2050?

Remember the northern latitudes are expected to warm more than the global average (as they are doing at the moment). The warming by 2100 (given as 1.4 to 5.8°C in the new report) is the global average. The higher latitudes will probably be more than that. So they may be refering specifically to expected temepratures around canada.

Northern temperatures have not been rising as the computer models predict.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20514