Climate Change V - More Evidence of Fraud

[cfimages]

Let's look at a couple of these claims then.

Okay, I will stop feeding CF Images rope. I think that he has made enough statements that make it hard for him to weasle out of his claims that the IPCC is not alarmist so here goes for quite a list of non-Himalayan glacial er events:

IPCC Wrong Again: Species Loss Far Less Severe Than Feared
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 21:01 AFP
IPCC report based on "fundamentally flawed" methods that exaggerate the threat of extinction - The pace at which humans are driving animal and plant species toward extinction through habitat destruction is at least twice as slow as previously thought, according to a study released Wednesday.

The IPCC summary says

There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe

That's certainly not offering any certainties and IPCC have acknowledged that the methodology needs improvements. We're not at the point of 3.5°C temperature rises yet so we can't draw any conclusions on the accuracy or lack thereof.

Next.

One of the many dangers of global warming being thrown around is the increased incidence of malaria in Africa. The theory being that warmer climate would allow mosquitoes to transmit malaria to higher altitudes as the climate warmed up. Year after year it has been thrown out that malaria will rise as a result of global warming. Considering the typical accuracy of the IPCC, it should be no surprise that they are once again completely wrong.

A new paper from Malaria Journal is claiming that there has been an unexplained and dramatic DECREASE in the mosquitoes that cause malaria. The drop over the past 20 years cannot be explained by activities to reduce mosquitoes and the drop is ~100%. They actually put the percent drop at 99.7% and 99.8%, but you will excuse me if I round that up a tiny amount. This qualifies as a significant drop in the mosquitoes that transmit malaria.

If you look at Table 8.2 at this link http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4-1-2.html you'll see that a decrease in Africa by the 2020's was predicted in one scenario. They also state that

Malaria is a complex disease to model and all published models have limited parameterisation of some of the key factors that influence the geographical range and intensity of malaria transmission. Given this limitation, models project that, particularly in Africa, climate change will be associated with geographical expansions of the areas suitable for stable Plasmodium falciparum malaria in some regions and with contractions in other regions (Tanser et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2004; van Lieshout et al., 2004; Ebi et al., 2005)

There's nothing in what the IPCC reported that can be described as "completely wrong".

You're 0 for 2 so far. Let's try a third.

'One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent

The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for "carbon credits"

As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote.'

In fact, the IPCC suggests crop yields could increase in the short term - up to 2030. Agoumi's statements were footnoted in the report stating that it was gray literature. If you'd bothered to read the report you'd know that.

Mountains out of molehills Mr Smith. 0 for 3.

At this point, I'm going to go have some coffee and start work. I may come back to the other points later as time permits.

[Dog's_Breakfast]

You conservative Republicans among us badly need to read the following article:

A Message From A Republican Meteorologist On Climate Change:
Acknowledging Climate Change Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

[fred smith]

In one scenario this, in another that. In a range, one possibility is this, one is that. So CF Images.... what are we to make of the IPCC if it is covering all the bases. I suppose that the Himalayan glacier disappearance was yet another possible scenario but another acknowledged something else? okay... yes, 0 for 3 if you can take anything that you want out of the IPCC but another scenario puts it at...

So, if the IPCC is all over the page and all over the place, what is the urgency if nothing is urgent if you look at the lesser of the scenarios? What is the urgent call for action based on? Why if these alternative scenarios are included/exist should we take any urgent action at all? based on but in another scenario???

[fred smith]

You conservative Republicans among us badly need to read the following article:

A Message From A Republican Meteorologist On Climate Change:
Acknowledging Climate Change Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

Oh really... okay then let's have you answer what you think the solution is and what you would like to do and how much will it cost and what will the deliverables be? I can hear CF Images response already... in this scenario but in that scenario so are you going to wiggle through this as well by dismissing the criticism by stating the IPCC had the alternative already as an option? and if the alternatives are there and they are not catastrophic or urgent or if in fact things are going to improve!!! why do anything at all?

[cfimages]

In one scenario this, in another that. In a range, one possibility is this, one is that. So CF Images.... what are we to make of the IPCC if it is covering all the bases. I suppose that the Himalayan glacier disappearance was yet another possible scenario but another acknowledged something else? okay... yes, 0 for 3 if you can take anything that you want out of the IPCC but another scenario puts it at...

So, if the IPCC is all over the page and all over the place, what is the urgency if nothing is urgent if you look at the lesser of the scenarios? What is the urgent call for action based on? Why if these alternative scenarios are included/exist should we take any urgent action at all? based on but in another scenario???

Well no, it's not all over the place. Different scenarios represent different models using different data and variables. While the final numbers are necessarily different, the underlying trends are the same. Urgent action is needed now to prevent the worst of these effects in the future. Offering a range gives some idea as to what happens if action is taken now vs what happens if nothing is done.

The more you talk about the IPCC, the more obvious it is that you don't have a clue how it works or what it does. The same could be said for basic scientific method, you seem to lack a fundamental grasp of that Go and do some homework and bone up on what IPCC actually does, and how science works before you post. If you want to be taken seriously that is.

[finley]

Fred, CFI is right: you're arguing from a position of disadvantage because (as far as I can tell) you don't have any background in science. You're playing with reports and studies like a toddler playing with an industrial bandsaw.

As for the cost - which is what I think you're really concerned about - it's not going to cost anything over and above our normal cash burn rate. Why would it? We did all this earlier, but I'll say it again. Do you ever have rambling debates about how much it's going to cost to upgrade your interstate power lines to HVDC? Or about how much money Rolls-Royce "wasted" on perfecting its latest turbofan, which is considerably more efficient than a 1970s low-bypass design? Or about the cost of replacing old and worn-out roads and bridges? It's in the nature of our world that we spend a shitload of money on repair and maintenance. Every time we do that, we can either replace things with old, outdated technology that has the same life expectancy and operating cost, or we can install something better that costs (all things considered) less to build and operate. All sorts of improvements go on behind the scenes that you're probably not even aware of, making things just that bit better each time. All people are suggesting now is that instead of making things a bit better, we make them a lot better. We know how to do it, but there are just too many people arguing that it's too much trouble - mostly windbags in suits who have never constructed, maintained, or produced anything in their lives.

Now, if you think the cheaper, better high-tech alternatives are bad because they will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions that's a whole different argument, and I must admit I'd struggle with that. It would be like arguing with Richard Nixon. But complaining that it's going to cost money is a bit like moaning about having to pay for a haircut or new clothes now and then.

[Dog's_Breakfast]

You conservative Republicans among us badly need to read the following article:

A Message From A Republican Meteorologist On Climate Change:
Acknowledging Climate Change Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

Oh really... okay then let's have you answer what you think the solution is and what you would like to do and how much will it cost and what will the deliverables be? I can hear CF Images response already... in this scenario but in that scenario so are you going to wiggle through this as well by dismissing the criticism by stating the IPCC had the alternative already as an option? and if the alternatives are there and they are not catastrophic or urgent or if in fact things are going to improve!!! why do anything at all?

Your response makes me wonder if you read the article. The whole point of the article was to put tribal politics aside and just look at this as a scientific issue, which is what it is. The laws of physics aren't the least bit interested in whether or not you're a card-carrying Democrat or a conservative Republican. Those ice caps will melt, totally indifferent to your rants against Al Gore, George Soros and the IPCC.

Now if you want to talk about solutions, that's totally different. Indeed, that's where politics starts to matter. But before we get to there, we have to agree that the problem even exists. From what I've seen, the conservative voices on this forum - of which you are definitely one, Fred - expend enormous effort in denying the laws of physics. Deny all you want, but those glaciers will go right on melting even as you insist that the world is getting cooler.

So you want to hear my solution? It probably will surprise you. I'm a very big advocate of 4th generation nuclear power. The world needs to build about 4000 of these advanced nukes, then shut down all coal, oil and natural gas power plants. I didn't just pull this solution out of my ass, there are others who advocate the same thing, some of them with pretty solid scientific credentials. One such person is NASA climatologist James Hanson, whom you've no doubt heard of. I know that the die-hard environmental movement doesn't like to hear about nukes (except shutting them down), but their "alternative energy" solution (wind, solar) is unlikely to produce anywhere near enough energy to avoid a global climate meltdown.

How much will all those nukes cost? Not cheap, but the alternative of doing nothing is not going to be cheaper in the long run. It costs money to move New York City and London to high ground. Anyway, we need to get energy from some place, and nuclear is price competitive with coal, gas and oil. Those nukes will probably get built eventually because fossil fuels are running out, but what I'm advocating is that we need to do it RIGHT NOW. Waiting for half the state of Florida to be underwater and then starting construction is very short-term thinking.

Now I know from your past posts on nuclear power that you are in favor of it. So we have common ground. So I hope you don't feel soiled by sharing a common position with a "liberal" (if that's what I am). But as my originally linked article said, this shouldn't have ever been a liberal-vs-conservative issue. This is about science.

So maybe instead of denial, you can engage in a reality-based discussion about how we're going to solve this thing. Because if we humans don't, the Earth will solve the problem for us, but not in a nice way.

Have a nice day.
DB

[fred smith]

Fred, CFI is right: you're arguing from a position of disadvantage because (as far as I can tell) you don't have any background in science. You're playing with reports and studies like a toddler playing with an industrial bandsaw.

Oh really? So we have the extreme forecasts which have NOT come to pass but we have CF Images lowballing the problem to show that the models are correct. Under this type of approach, when would the computer models not be correct? and if this is all about science, okay, then, why can no one answer the question as to how Vincent Gray's assertion that two years should be removed as anomalies and thus make sealevel increases negligible is incorrect. Ditto for Morner's findings. They are both scientists but then... fill in the excuse here for why they are not acceptable. I urge you to use Heartland Institute at least three times in your no doubt very clever response. Perhaps, you can find a different tool this time. I would well imagine (though I don't know you) that you would have a great deal of experience with "tools."

As for the cost - which is what I think you're really concerned about - it's not going to cost anything over and above our normal cash burn rate. Why would it? We did all this earlier, but I'll say it again. Do you ever have rambling debates about how much it's going to cost to upgrade your interstate power lines to HVDC? Or about how much money Rolls-Royce "wasted" on perfecting its latest turbofan, which is considerably more efficient than a 1970s low-bypass design? Or about the cost of replacing old and worn-out roads and bridges? It's in the nature of our world that we spend a shitload of money on repair and maintenance. Every time we do that, we can either replace things with old, outdated technology that has the same life expectancy and operating cost, or we can install something better that costs (all things considered) less to build and operate. All sorts of improvements go on behind the scenes that you're probably not even aware of, making things just that bit better each time. All people are suggesting now is that instead of making things a bit better, we make them a lot better. We know how to do it, but there are just too many people arguing that it's too much trouble - mostly windbags in suits who have never constructed, maintained, or produced anything in their lives.

The costs to industry are much higher and they are being designed to transfer payments not to US companies but to foreign governments and NGOs working in those areas who are endlessly needy but never capable of fulfilling the parameters of their eternal projects. No?

Now, if you think the cheaper, better high-tech alternatives are bad because they will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions that's a whole different argument, and I must admit I'd struggle with that. It would be like arguing with Richard Nixon. But complaining that it's going to cost money is a bit like moaning about having to pay for a haircut or new clothes now and then.

I suppose that a better argument would be, communism failed everywhere, Third Worldism failed everywhere, aid and assistance programs have failed nearly everywhere, the UN/EU/Development Nexus has failed eveywhere so the solution: More economic and wealth distribution courtesy of a newly named global warming and climate change initiative because this time (after so many other failures) it will deliver on the desired eden of social justice. So why is it that people like me simply cannot get our heads around this and accept the new diktats governing how we are to live our lives, who is to be in control and how these measures are to be paid for? and the fact that economic development is hindered means nothing. After all, China, India, Brazil and others including the formerly communist eastern europe and Russia developed because of communism, third worldism, aid and assistance and climate change funds no? So what's the beef? Why cannot I see the bigger picture? I should trust the UN run IPCC because the UN has been so successful in so many areas such as.... er... maybe you can help me out... and since you clearly have a better understanding of the science, explain why the sealevels are rising despite Morner's and Gray's assertions to the contrary... back to you.

When renewables achieve cost-effective implementation as some are now it is invariably because the private sector is buying into them, not because government subsidies are leading the way. The former is about efficiency and good business plans, the latter is about government bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers. How's that working out for you?

[cfimages]

Fred, CFI is right: you're arguing from a position of disadvantage because (as far as I can tell) you don't have any background in science. You're playing with reports and studies like a toddler playing with an industrial bandsaw.

Oh really? So we have the extreme forecasts which have NOT come to pass but we have CF Images lowballing the problem to show that the models are correct.

Look at the following table. It's taken directly from the IPCC report found at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns-of.html



You can see that it lists the 6 scenarios dependent on different warming conditions. The column to the right is the sea level increase range.

Notice that the years listed is the decade from 2090 - 2099.

Notice also that the maximum sea level rise in any scenario is 0.59m.

Now despite what you may have heard or what you may believe, these are the IPCC's figures. There's no lowballing going on. There's no expectation that we'd be seeing rises of this magnitude today. These figures are all there in black and white, in the IPCC's most recent report using the most up-to-date data at the time the report was compiled.

[fred smith]

Most likely range works for me. So we are in agreement. There is nothing urgent about global warming and we can all go back to our daily business. Thanks for finally coming around to this. We will stand in lockstep to attack all media, NGOs, governments, UN organizations and others who demand funds and action to stave off global warming given these less than serious computer predictions. Works for me. Argument over. Consensus achieved.