Climate change far worse than thought before

[polly7]

Climate change far worse than thought before
IANS 3 January 2010, 12:09pm IST

NEW DELHI: Global alarm over climate change and its effects has risen manifold after the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC). Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC scientists have found climate change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had predicted.

Their studies will be considered for the next IPCC report, but since that will come out only in 2013, the University of New South Wales in Sydney has just put together the main findings in the last three years. Most are by previous IPCC lead authors "familiar with the rigour and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature", a university spokesperson said.

The most significant recent findings are:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Climate-change-far-worse-than-thought-before/articleshow/5406955.cms

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

2. That's it, just discount the hours and years and sacrifice of

these environmental scientists .......... just what the billions of people on this earth need, and what the multinationals are hoping to hear more of. No, I can't think of any instance, but my own common sense tells me we're digging ourselves into a hole we may not climb out of. Well, those of us climate change won't affect quite as soon may be alright for a bit longer, it's the millions losing farmland to flooding, droughts, rising sea levels claiming back all that land, animal species suffering, indigenous people talking of the changes they're already seeing in the north. I just love how these serious topics attract the clever remarks usually meant to discount an article you probably haven't even read or care much about, eh.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

5. A

As long as we stupidly chop down rainforests, make excuses not to cut emissions, trash the earth like it's our own personal playpen without regard to the effect for millions of people and animals ......... definitely, A. It can only get worse. Apparently, we're not smart enough to take action until we personally begin to suffer, but the researchers still try with their results to convince us to at least try, bless them.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

7. LOL nt.

[caraher]

8. I'll never figure out this "climate scientists rolling in cash" meme

Anyone smart enough to earn a PhD is also smart enough to know there are at least 37 more effective ways to make money than going to grad school, doing multiple postdocs then accepting a university or government research position. It's not as if any climate scientist is going to make a fraction of the compensation of even a mid-level oil company executive, yet we're supposed to think they're the untrustworthy money-grubbers?

It's interesting that on the one hand, climate change deniers like to play up the uncertainties to create doubt that there is a problem at all, then impugn the researchers for working to whittle those uncertainties down. Its as if there were, I dunno, some kind of truth they'd find it inconvenient to know or something. I wish there were some snappy title that captures this... ;)

[wuvuj]

9. Yea...but Al Gore will get rich...

...and the whole global warming thing is just being pushed to fool the denialists.


Title? - The sick and twisted fight desperately for their masters?

Much like as with vampires...it takes a wooden stake...and a village?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bergie321]

18. "Al Gore"

"in fact he's on his way to being a billionare."

That is called a slow week at Exxon-Mobil but please continue buying the propaganda being fed to you.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caraher]

22. And just *how* is he getting rich?

From what I've read Al Gore was getting rich quite independent of any investments in "green" industries or a payday from his advocacy. According to a 2007 article on his net worth expanding from $1M to perhaps $100M,

What no one is talking about is that he has also become a stunningly successful businessman--and that has fueled his comeback. Since his nonelection, Gore has become a millionaire many times over, bringing him, in financial terms, shoulder to shoulder with the C-suite denizens he used to hit up for campaign cash. In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. Even if Gore were the worst kind of unscrupulous profiteer, whipping up hysteria to advance his personal fortune, the facts are the facts. And the people who study climate for a living, who don't have the money to build vast fortunes through investments, conclude that we're on a course for trouble. Those are the people I trust, not Al Gore, and they are painting a pretty consistent picture.

[caraher]

23. more for the Gore obsessed

Here's a pretty good New York Times piece on Gore's investments.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caraher]

32. It's utterly irrelevant

Perhaps you could try reading my post:

But in the end, it doesn't matter. Even if Gore were the worst kind of unscrupulous profiteer, whipping up hysteria to advance his personal fortune, the facts are the facts. And the people who study climate for a living, who don't have the money to build vast fortunes through investments, conclude that we're on a course for trouble. Those are the people I trust, not Al Gore, and they are painting a pretty consistent picture.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

19. Can you show a correlation between funds and predictions?

ie, if one makes more dire predictions, do they get more funding?

(The answer to this is no, since the vast majority of the data is through meteorological fields, and since the scientists in question are guaranteed a salary.)

Given that all of the data is available in a raw state (GHCN, GISS, NOAA), then one could easily disprove their findings.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

20. Are you really that fucking simpleminded?

If a researcher is looking for funding opportunities the easiest to get is money from the think tanks associated with the Republicans and their fossil fuel/nuclear industries.

IIRC there is one think tank (Heritage Foundation) with a standard offer of $20K for any article that rejects AGW.

[guardian]

25. No I think YOU are "that fucking simpleminded"

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d11-The-big-money-of-climate-science-highlighted-by-Climategate-and-Copenhagen

Since 1990, Jones has received $22 million in grant funding. Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year. Most of the grants came from government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union. Jones has been forced to step down temporarily while an investigation is conducted into his actions.

Michael Mann of Penn State University, another central figure in Climategate, benefited from a great deal of grant money as well. He drew in $5.6 million in grants this decade, most of it from the U.S. taxpayer through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

According to the Wall Street Journal, governments are pouring billions of dollars into climate science. The European Commission, not including individual nations’ expenditures, will appropriate $3 billion. NASA will be the beneficiary of $1.3 billion, NOAA will bag $400 million, and the National Science Foundation gets $300 million.

[kristopher]

26. And yet despite the standing offers from Republican think tanks there are no takers...

We spend money on research in a large number of areas - so in and of itself, pointing to spending on climate change research proves nothing expect that we spend money on research.

YOU are asserting that researchers are fabricating results related to climate change in order to get MORE funding. You have no proof of that except your desire that it be so. What DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your idiotic proposition is that there are huge quantities of funding out there with no takers.

IF the researchers were as desperate for money as you assert, and
IF the researchers were willing to LIE for funding,
THEN it is impossible that the RIGHT WING money would go unclaimed.

Since we KNOW that the body of literature supporting the preferred position of the fossil fuel and minerals mining industries is virtually non-existent, then we KNOW that your assertion is a COLOSSALLY STUPID claim.

[guardian]

21. You can't figure it out because you don't want to.

Like a typical Doomer you ignore reality. Anyone who claims there is no money in AGW is a liar--pure and simple. A simple Google search of "climate change research grants" gives 2,740,000 hits. Below is 4 minutes of searching to find climate grants/funding.


http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1172
Much of the nearly $2 billion annual climate change research budget supports grants from the Department of Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Science Foundation (NSF).

http://www.dri.edu/component/content/article/142-general-dri-news/158-22m-nevada-climate-change-research-grant
The NSF has granted NSHE and DRI $22 million over a five year period to study regional climate change and its impacts on Nevada and the Great Basin. The results of this study will inform policy makers about the impacts of climate change and the availability of water resources to the area.

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/opportunities/
In FY 2008, approximately $14M in first-year funding was available for 102 new awards. While similar funds and number of awards are anticipated in FY 2010, the number of new awards and funding levels depends upon the final FY 2010 budget appropriations. It is anticipated that awards will be at a funding level between $50,000 and $200,000 per year (note that awards from the Sector Applications Research Program are limited to $150,000 per year.)

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=289
• Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
• Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.
• The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
• In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institution?s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.

http://www.ddcf.org/doris_duke_files/download_files/DDCFClimateChangeOvw.pdf
Recognizing global climate change as one of the great challenges of our time, the
Doris Duke Charitable Foundation has made a commitment to help build a clean-energy
economy. The foundation’s five-year, $100 million Climate Change Initiative seeks to
accelerate the development and deployment of climate-friendly technologies that will
reduce the threat of global warming to people and the environment.

http://www.uwyo.edu/news/showrelease.asp?id=33943
Three of UW's approved federal stimulus grants from the NSF -- including the largest of $586,581, awarded to Terry L. Deshler and Jennifer Mercer in the Department of Atmospheric Science -- will help stimulate research on various aspects of climate change. Pendall's award of $149,961 will be used to study how the timing of summer precipitation affects the responses of boreal forest to changes in the climate.

http://www.cgc.uaf.edu/
One of the Center's major activities is the annual Global Change Student Research Grant Competition, which has funded both graduate and undergraduate research projects since its inception in 1992. The competition was greatly expanded in 2009, due in large part to generous new investments by UA President Mark Hamilton and UAA Chancellor Fran Ulmer. Maximum award amounts have increased significantly


http://www.sciencecoalition.org/images/assets/ARRA%20Research%20September%20Release%20w%20Hyperlinks%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Examples include the University of Washington’s research into the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems. A University of Nevada, Reno biochemist is working to understand how plants adapt and thrive in warm, dry climates – knowledge that will be important as global warming may make such climates more widespread.

[caraher]

33. Nobody says there is no money for research

Having fun with your straw man argument?

At the very least, if you want to cast suspicions on the research this way you need to establish more than the mere existence of funding for research on climate change and its causes. You also need to establish that these funds are available on a quid pro quo basis where further support depends on obtaining particular results. You need to show that someone is putting a finger on the scales - you give us the results we want, we'll keep paying you. Which ultimately means that the money is irrelevant - you need to go straight to the research results themselves and show a problem there.

A simpler explanation for this pattern of funding research: there are scientific questions we need answered. Doing so takes money.

The alternative is to wallow in ignorance.

[SpiralHawk]

12. Next prediction: increase in ostrich population

Because some just can't handle the truth.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merkins]

4. But you keep saying this every 4 months ...

:sarcasm:

And I'm afraid it will be posted again and again till we finally wake up.

K&R!
:thumbsup:

[JoeyT]

10. At this point it doesn't matter anymore.

I've become an AGW defeatist. I don't think we can stop it. I'm not sure we can even slow it down without some *massive* technological advances. Advances that aren't coming. I'm not sure we haven't passed the point where we could stop it anyway.

All we can do is get ready to drown all the people that insisted the Earth was cooling in the newly risen oceans.

[stuntcat]

11. those people

the most hardcore anti-earthers are all lucky 1st-worlders.. they'll probably have everything they want their whole lives.
I imagine them being mauled and eaten by some of the animals they drove to extinction :headbang: that won't happen either though.

Aww, bless their tight little hearts.

[Javaman]

13. "I imagine them being mauled and eaten by some of the animals they drove to extinction"

That would be the poor.

The rich will be soylent green. ;)

[polly7]

17. Yes, it does matter. Don't give up.

People (obviously) get tired of me going on and on about it, but I write anyone and everyone I can think of with even a little political clout at least once a week, I send email with every new report, I'm a member of different orgs like tarsands watch and forward their material, I don't live close enough anymore to join their protests so that sucks ...... and I do what I can personally to lessen my impact, as I'm sure you do. I'm probably on some Big-Oil hit list, but whatever, they can kiss my *. I forward all the Avaaz material and convince people to sign .... it may be very little but it still only takes minutes out of my week.

[guardian]

24. Good

If more people become "defeatists" then maybe you'll shut up and just go away. Then people can start focusing funds and resources on things that will actually help the environment instead of this CO2 bullshit.

[Nihil]

34. F.O.A.D.

> If more people become "defeatists" then maybe you'll shut up and just go away.

Sadly, I cannot imagine anything that would make you do the same.

[slackmaster]

31. I think reducing C02 emissions to near zero by 2100 is a realistic and reasonable goal

There are plenty of good reasons to do it other than attempting to stop AGW.

[TxRider]

36. Nobody will drown

The oceans won't rise up in a day.

They were about 450 feet lower than today 8,000 years ago, and have risen ever since.

They will rise until the next glaciation begins no matter what we do, it's only a question of rising a bit faster with out help.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. I believe this is referring to ”The Copenhagen Diagnosis”

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/climate-change-accelerating-beyond-expectations-urgent-emissions-reductions-required-say-leading-scientists/