OUTDOOR HOMEFEATURE ARTICLESCLIMATE CHANGERoyal Society making stuff up on climate, says group Royal Society making stuff up on climate, says group November 4, 2017 iwishart “There’s not one chance in a million that the future will unfold in the manner predicted by the NZ Royal Society’s report “Human Health Impacts of Climate Change in New Zealand”, said the chairman of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, Hon Barry Brill. “A gypsy fortune teller’s crystal ball would provide a more reliable resource for New Zealand policymakers.” The foundation for the entire report is set out in the second paragraph: “Our climate is changing … we can anticipate air temperatures to rise by another 2.5°C to 5°C by the end of the century.” These forecasts are wild and irresponsible exaggerations, that contradict the consensus predictions[1] reported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These official figures were not alarming enough for the Royal Society, so they have simply cranked them up. Projected change in global mean surface air temperatures relative to 1986-2005 Expected Pathway Mean Increase to 2065 Mean increase to 2100 2.6 1.0° 1.0° 4.5 1.4° 1.8° 6.0 1.3° 2.2° 8.5 2.0° 3.7° All but one of the IPCC’s projections are less than half of the Society’s fevered imaginings. RCP8.5 provides for outer extremes but, in practice, nobody believes it could ever happen. It’s scenario requires a world where the population exceeds 15 billion, all countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Somalia) become as wealthy as USA, technology is frozen for 100 years, and the world turns back to coal for its main energy supply. Even the far-out 3.7°C projected for RCP8.5 has to be upped by 35% to satisfy the “Health Report”. Then there’s the crass assumption that New Zealanders are already suffering health effects from recent increases in average temperatures. This is just not true. Actual data from NIWA’s 7SS (which is used to calculate NZ averages) show there has been no warming trend at all in the past 19 years[2]. There may be controversy as to whether global warming has “paused” since the El Nino of 1998, but New Zealand has certainly benefitted from its home-grown “hiatus” during the last 19 years. Graph from Climate Conversation Not satisfied with doubling the temperature forecasts, the Society then applies a relentlessly negative lens to the expected effect. It ignores the scientific literature concluding that global warming will do more good than harm until average temperatures rise by at least 2°C. It ignores the fact that the increase of plant-fertilising atmospheric CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04% has already driven a 14% increase in agricultural output. The report does recognise that “climate change has already led to changes in the length of the growing season” but says “studies also find that increases in CO2 levels result in greater pollen production”. They dwell on the potential increase in allergies but completely overlook the growth in the food supply! But when they do deal with food, they assume a catastrophic reduction in world vegetable and fruit production, which they prophesy will result in 500,000 extra deaths by 2050! A similar dystopian view is taken of weather. Although noting that New Zealand winters see around 1600 more deaths than occur in the summer, they are more concerned about 14 heat-related deaths per annum when temperatures exceed 20°C. The real (but unconscious) irony in all this is that much more harm is done by climate alarmism than by climate changes. The report notes (at p9): “Routine exposure to images, headlines, and risk messages about the threat of current and projected climate change provide a powerful and on-going stress-inducing aspect of an individual’s everyday environment. Between 2005 and 2016 there were on average 422 articles published per month mentioning global warming or climate change in print or online media in the New Zealand region, according to the global media database Factiva (vii). In the US, psychological responses to such stress have been show to include heightened risk perceptions, general anxiety, pessimism, helplessness, eroded sense of self and collective control, stress, distress, sadness, loss, and guilt.” [1] See attached table from the Summary for Policymakers for Working Group I of the Fifth Assessment Report [2] See graph at the Climate Conversation – www.climateconversation.org.nz/2017/11/climate-bombshell-nz-has-not-warmed-for-20-years/ Related posts: LEATHER CASE FOR BLACKVIEW PHONE Copyright 2017, Investigate Magazine
It's not the unfortunate and nebulous phrase "Climate Change" that anyone could take issue with, it is how it is being interpreted. No one disputes that the climate is changing. There doesn't even seem to be any dispute about the direction in the North American Quadrant. What is unsettled is how global is the change, what is the rate, and what are the primary contributors. Until you know the cause for an observation you don't don't stand much of a chance doing anything about it, and even than, if it turns out to be a "natural" cause, you might have difficulty. Good Luck to everyone trying to do something about that nebulous "Climate Change". I would encourage you to keep looking for the cause. https://www.theguardian.com/science...ng-is-antarctica-falling-apart-climate-change Melting and cracking – is Antarctica falling apart? Although fracturing and surface melting on the Larsen C ice shelf might sound like indicators of climate change, these processes are natural Helen Amanda Fricker Fri 23 Jun 2017 05.15 EDT Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 11.58 EST Vast iceberg splits from Antarctic ice shelf Antarctica boasts a great many superlatives: it is the driest continent, the coldest, the remotest, the windiest and the highest on average. Right now, during midwinter, it is also the darkest. As a rift on the continent’s Larsen C ice shelf lengthens and gets closer to the ice front, we are anticipating the detachment of a large tabular iceberg within the next few weeks. This comes after observations of a waterfall on another ice shelf last summer, reports of extensive surface melting on several ice shelves and, in a report last week, indications of a widespread surface-melting event, which included rainfall as far as 82° south, during the 2015-16 El Niño. Are glaciologists shocked by any of this? Is Antarctica going to melt away? Is Larsen C about to collapse? The answer to these questions is no. Glaciologists are not alarmed about most of these processes; they are examples of Antarctica simply doing what we know Antarctica has done for thousands of years. But because there is a potential link between the ice sheet and climate change, glaciologists are suddenly faced with a situation where the spotlight is on our science on a seemingly daily basis, and every time a crack grows, or a meltstream forms, it becomes news. The situation is a conundrum: we want people to be aware of Antarctica and concerned about what might happen there in the near future as climate changes. But hyping research results to sound like climate change, when they are just improved understanding of natural behaviour, is misleading. To understand all of this, we need to think about how Antarctica works. The ice sheet stores 90% of Earth’s freshwater, which would translate to about 60m of sea-level rise around the globe if it all melted. If Larsen C were to disappear, its tributaries could contribute about 1cm to the global sea level. The ice gets there through snowfall, just like the ski slopes at Chamonix, but, in Antarctica, with annual average temperatures ranging from -5C to -60C, most of the snow that falls over winter remains at the end of each summer. Over millions of years, snowfall has been added, buried and compacted by new snowfall, and an ice sheet has grown. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Diagram showing an Antarctic ice shelf Illustration: Jennifer Matthews Once the ice is thick enough, it flows downhill towards the ocean, where it lifts off the ground and floats, forming an ice shelf. In contact with the ocean below and the atmosphere above, this is where the “rubber hits the road”: to maintain its size, the ice sheet must shed the extra ice it gains through snowfall, which it does through two processes that both occur at the ice shelves – calving of icebergs at the front, and melting underneath. Ice shelves also hold back the flow of the grounded ice; if shedding from ice shelves exceeds the gains from snowfall, they will shrink, and then glaciers feeding them will feel less resistance to flow and speed up, and sea level will rise. There is plenty going on that merits concern: Antarctic ice shelves overall are seeing accelerated thinning, and the ice sheet is losing mass in key sectors of Antarctica. Continuing losses might soon lead to an irreversible decline. However, we do not need to press the panic button for Larsen C. Large calving events such as this are normal processes of a healthy ice sheet, ones that have occurred for decades, centuries, millennia – on cycles that are much longer than a human or satellite lifetime. The Larsen C rift is like a dozen other rifts observed in Antarctica before. What looks like an enormous loss is just ordinary housekeeping for this part of Antarctica. An iceberg, even one as large as Delaware or a quarter of the size of Wales, is small compared to the whole ice sheet, which averages 1.4 miles thick and is larger in area than Australia. Think of it as one grain in a bag of rice. Similarly, waterfalls off the front of the ice shelf are not a catastrophe. Surface melt is common and occurs every summer as temperatures rise above 0C, as reported in papers published in the 1990s. So, while ice fracturing and surface melting may sound like signs of climate change in action in Antarctica, they are really part of the background against which we must look for real change. Real changes are happening there, and when we report them they need to stand out. Previous collapse events involved large amounts of surface melt that forms ponds on an ice shelf that had already weakened. We have not observed this on Larsen C. We will continue to monitor Antarctica by satellites and from the ground, but we will not cry wolf about an imminent collapse of Larsen C. [the underlining in the 3rd paragraph above is the posters; not the authors.] Helen Amanda Fricker is a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
And yet not one publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. Not one. And your article doesn't support your position at all. It does make your stupidity look better though. And classic think tank strategy. "Bolster' the bullshit with irrelevant science. The consensus is essentially 100% There is no debate about it anymore among the experts. "What is unsettled is how global is the change, what is the rate, and what are the primary contributors. Until you know the cause for an observation you don't don't stand much of a chance doing anything about it, " No, you are wrong piehole, it is certainly settled. Maybe not for propagandists but for the scientists it is. See, piehole, you seem confused. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas on earth. It's levels controls the temps. And this.. Get it?
Not really, not the way you do apparently. I tend to look at the data differently than you do. I am looking for explanations that are consistent with all observations.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/danish-climate-body-wrongly-reported-greenland-heat-record Danish climate body wrongly reported Greenland heat record Denmark's national climate body has admitted it wrongly reported record warm temperatures on the centre of the Greenland ice sheet last week, in what it called "good news from a climate perspective". The Danish Meteorological Institute, which has a key role in monitoring Greenland's climate, last week reported a shocking August temperature of between 2.7C and 4.7C at the Summit weather station, which is located 3,202m above sea level at the the centre of the Greenland ice sheet, generating a spate of global headlines. But on Wednesday it posted a tweet saying that a closer look had shown that monitoring equipment had been giving erroneous results. "Was there record-level warmth on the inland ice on Friday?" it said. "No! A quality check has confirmed out suspicion that the measurement was too high."
Climate debate abounds with deceptionCHRIS KENNY The ABC and The Guardian Australia have shown that when the assessments of climate scientists don’t fit their narrative, they are prepared to go on the attack. 12:00AM OCTOBER 28, 2019 Blatant deception has become endemic in what is an extreme debate on global warming. The alarmists who sneer at so-called climate deniers are, all too often, fact deniers. The ABC and The Guardian Australia have shown when the assessments of climate scientists don’t fit their catastrophist narrative, they are prepared to ignore or verbal scientists and attack other media for sharing the information. Consider a forum at the University of Sydney on “The Business of Making Climate Change” in June that included the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes director Andrew Pitman. Asked about climate and drought, Professor Pitman said this: “This may not be what you expect to hear but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought. Now, that may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented but there is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid. “And if you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last 100 years there’s no trend in data, there’s no drying trend, there’s been a drying trend in the last 20 years but there’s been no drying trend in the last 100 years and that’s an expression of how variable the Australian rainfall climate is.” You will not have heard that comment, in full, on the ABC, nor read it in The Guardian Australia; yet they have run many comments from Greens and Labor politicians saying the drought is linked to climate change. This self-censorship is extraordinary enough because there could hardly be a more relevant and factual contribution from such a reputable source that puts the lie to the political posturing over a crippling drought that is dominating political debate. But it gets worse. What the ABC’s MediaWatch did a fortnight ago, and The Guardian Australian replicated last week, is run cut-down versions of that quote and accuse me and others at Sky News of misrepresenting Professor Pitman. That’s right, it is commentators sharing a reputable climate scientist’s own words, uncut, that they criticise. These journalists failed to run the pertinent information but slammed others for running it. Their tenuous justification is a statement from Professor Pitman’s centre claiming he should have said “no direct link” rather than “no link”. The insertion of the word “direct” into his assessment is mere semantics and changes nothing. Indeed the statement begs the question of how and why this ex post facto qualification came about, not directly from Professor Pitman, but from his centre. In that June forum Professor Pitman also said the “fundamental” problem in this field of science is that “we don’t understand what causes droughts” — again underscoring the absence of a climate change/drought link. Last week he was reported on the topic again in The Guardian Australia: “But the fact that I can’t establish something does not make it true or false, it just means I can’t establish it.” Astonishingly, the website argued this quote bolstered its claims of misrepresentation when clearly it reaffirms his critical point; there is no link established between our drought and global warming. The evidence is in, no matter how much it is buried, denied and spun away by the ABC and Guardian Australia. All of Professor Pitman’s comments demonstrate that politicians are making a link between global warming and drought that climate scientists have not established. In comparison, some of us at Sky News have run Professor Pitman’s comments in full a number of times, drawn our conclusions, asked others to comment and allowed audiences to make their own judgments. Additionally, I have repeatedly invited Professor Pitman to discuss the issues, live and uncut to air. He shrinks away. We can imagine it is difficult for scientists to have their work pushed and pulled for political point-scoring — but they have a public duty to share the facts. Professor Pitman’s work is being grossly misrepresented by the ABC and The Guardian Australia, who argue the opposite to his declared reality. His centre should be clearing the air but is doing the opposite. The dishonesty of the reporting by Paul Barry’s Media Watch, at your expense, is stunning. They cut, trim and misrepresent what has been broadcast on Sky News, fail to ask pertinent questions of Professor Pitman and try to convince the public that his research shows the exact opposite of what he has said repeatedly. There has seldom been a clearer demonstration of George Orwell’s 1984 maxim: “War is Peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” The Guardian Australia should be left to its own devices, I suppose, but Ita Buttrose should not sit idly by and allow Media Watch to implement the antithesis of the ABC’s charter mission. PC crowd bully Leunig It behoves me to defend Michael Leunig, despite having never met him, nor warming to the whiny tone of his cartoons, and holding a bit of a grudge against him because he didn’t support his fellow cartoonist, the late, great Bill Leak, in his hour of need. Still, we need to stand by Leunig because the bullying handed out to him in the searing world of social media is another assault on free expression. Were he around today, Leak would be in Leunig’s corner, showing a solidarity too many spared for him. Leak was probably helped into his early grave in 2017 because of a nasty and illiberal pile-on over his provocative cartoon about indigenous community dysfunction. He was given the full thought-police treatment under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by the Australian Human Rights Commission. In miserable comments soon after Leak’s death, Leunig said Leak had probably been “egged on” by others to draw his “cruel” cartoon that was a “terrible mistake”. He could hardly have been more insulting, wrong or cowardly. Still, when Leunig last week dared to suggest that some of us — in his drawing, a mum — might be distracted from the better and more important things in life by our smartphones, all hell broke loose. A social media barrage attacked Leunig for things he did not choose — his age, sex and skin colour — as well as for his cartoon. On Channel 10’s The Project Leunig was denounced as a “dinosaur” and a “74-year-old dude” who was “targeting mums” and has “form going after women and mums in particular”. We were told it was “time he exited the public sphere for good”. At least Leunig didn’t confront an AHRC investigation trying to taint him as sexist or racist. But the vigour and tone of the public shaming was worrying; not seeking to disagree or discuss but to silence, condemn and de-platform. Lucky for Leunig, some cartoonists are consistent. Leak’s old mate, The Daily Telegraph’s Warren Brown, defended Leunig from what he called an “extraordinary” overreaction. “We’ve all copped it out of the blue,” Brown sympathised. “A cartoon is about making people think.” Yep, Leunig gave some readers pause to think. Well played, Warren, Bill would have loved your work, and he would have rung you to say so, not deferred to social media. CHRIS KENNY ASSOCIATE EDITOR (NATIONAL AFFAIR
While some of you are forever arguing about climate change half of California is on fire. The point is not to determine IF ( or HOW ) climate is changing ( it is ), but to develop better business and government practices to contain climate related events and outcomes. You can't run a country without proper contingencies in place and let huge numbers of people have their life changed in catastrophic ways due to climate related disasters. Trying to brand people who care about the environment and related issues as Communists or worse just is pointless stupid talk that deflects from solving some pretty serious weather related issues in the US these days.