Climate change: How do we know?

[***super_nova***]

Link to NASA site; are they also part of the "great conspiracy"?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence#.UjvpWySXQ8Y.facebook

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:

---

@*ibis wrote:

the sea level where i live looked just the same today as it did a half century ago

that is a personal observation

it may have risen 5mm i cant tell

---

 Naah....you're just taller than you were 50 years ago.......lol. 

---

  or......should that be shorter.....

[the_great_she_elephant]

(Crikey wrote) No, but the post contained false information. Makes you question the authenticity of the source of the information, eh? (Not the poster who republished it)

(polksaladallie's post) Kiribati: A Nation Going Under

Villagers on Abaiang, one of the Kiribati Islands, had to relocate the entire village of Tebunginako because of rising seas and erosion.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/kiribati-a-nation-going-under/590/

(From the article in the link. ) But as the water continues to inundate outlying islands — due to the rising sea-level and erosion caused by storm surges — even the greatest sceptics of man-made climate change have come around. One is Father Martin, parish priest on the Island of Abaiang, which is about two hours by boat from Tarawa. Of the island’s population of about 5,000, some 4,000 are Catholics.

(Abaiang is the ISLAND, Tebunginaku is the (tourist) VILLAGE.)

Elsewhere on Abaiang Atoll, one village, Tebunginako, which villagers have battled to save for the past 30 years from the encroaching sea, has had to be moved inland — a development that is often referred to as hard evidence that Kiribati is being ravaged by climate change. Tebunginako’s fate is held up as a barometer for the rest of Kiribati by the government, which facilitates the two-hour boat trip there for visiting journalists (including The Global Mail).

Old Tebunginako is a dramatic sight: the remains of about 100 thatched houses, a large community meeting hall (a maneabe) and a petrol station lie out to sea. Yet, as far back as 1992, a technical report, funded by the Canadian government, said increasingly severe El Niño events were producing the large waves that were eroding the Abaiang coast. And that report added that the islanders’ attempts at halting the erosion by building sea walls had exacerbated the island’s inundation. Only very recently — in the past year or two — have some climate scientists begun to suggest a strong link between severe El Niño events and global warming. However, this link is still contested among scientists.

Which part of the post, or link are you claiming is inaccurate?

[polksaladallie]

There is a small island where the residents have had to leave and go elsewhere because of rising sea levels.

Do you know which one it is? 

[***super_nova***]

---

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:

.."We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations. "...

  

---

No, it has not.  The leaked report has been quoted on few minor points which were taken totally out of context.  Of-course, computer modeling is not precise, and the projections have to be constantly altered.  It is like a weekly weather forecast; it is basically pretty accurate but sometimes we get a surprise; the predicted "showers" turn into deluge, or the temperatures do not hit the high predicted, that does not mean that the meteorologists are trying to deceive us.  And naturally, to predict global weather for the next hundred of years will not be exact, it is the trend and how it will affect us that matters.  The problem is that it extremely complicated science, with many aspects affecting different parts of the globe differently in different times, and most people are only concerned with the weather for next weekend.

The leaked report says that surface temperatures have not been escalating quite the way the models predicted.  That means the mean temperature is slightly lower than predicted, NOT that it is not increasing.   BUT that is because the heat has been absorbed by the sea, and the sea is becoming  more acidic than predicted, which is a very bad news, as the acidity will affect the whole ecology of oceans.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a well understood and accepted fact.  But the rise in temperature is always lagging bit behind increase of CO2.  The graph in my opening post shows that CO2 started rising very rapidly from the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Most of the world accepts that we have to reduce our emissions; Europe has been taking steps for many yearsand other countries and starting now.  Australia is the only country that is going backwards.  Apparently we have more people who rather believe the shock jocks than scientists. 

CHINA (state-based action)

The Chinese Government plans to develop emissions trading schemes in seven key cities and provinces from 2013. These schemes will cover around 250 million people. The Chinese Government aims to
work towards a nation-wide approach after 2015.

UNITED STATES (state-based action)

There is no nationwide carbon tax levelled in the USA, although a few states have introduced the tax. The United States Administration has not been able to secure support for legislation to set either a price or a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. However, emissions trading has operated in the power sector in nine states since 2009. California's emissions trading scheme will start in January 2013.

CANADA (province-based action)

Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but two Canadian provinces have existing carbon taxes (Quebec and British Columbia). Alberta implemented emissions trading in 2006 and Quebec's scheme will start in 2013. A further two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, are considering emissions trading schemes.The Canadian Federal Government has no immediate plans to implement national emissions trading.

INDIA (tax on coal)

In July 2010, India introduced a nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per tonne (less than $A1) of coal both produced and imported to India.

SOUTH KOREA

The Republic of Korea passed legislation in May 2012 for an emissions trading scheme to start from 1 January 2015. The emissions trading scheme will cover facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – expected to be around 450 of the country's largest emitters.

JAPAN

In April 2012, Japan legislated for a carbon tax of approximately ¥289 per tonne ($A3.30) by increasing existing taxes on fossil fuels (coal and LPG/LNG) with effect from 1 October 2012. Half the revenue will
fund low-emissions technologies. Japan has emissions trading schemes operating in the Tokyo and Saitama regions, covering 20 million people.

EUROPE (national-based action)

The European Union emissions trading scheme began in 2005 and now covers the 27 countries of the European Union, and three non-European Union members: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Their current target is a 21 per cent cut of 2005 emissions by 2025 (Australia's is a 5% cut of 2000 emissions by 2020).

A carbon tax was proposed by the European Commission in 2010, but a carbon tax has not been agreed upon by the 27 member states. The current proposal by the European Commission would charge firms between 4 and 30 euros per metric tonne of CO2.

Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

.."We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations. "... Dr Roy Spencer.

That quote is by a NASA scientist with 29 years experience working for them.  

    You did quote NASA in your opening post didn't you?  

[***super_nova***]

This guy does not speak for NASA, just because he once worked there (one of many thousands) means nothing; he is stil only one of the couple of % of deniers, who latch on any minor correction and trumpet it as an admission by the 97% of being wrong.  In any case he is commenting on a draft of a report with much data that needs to be examined by real scientists to properly evaluate it.

What Spencer is referring to is the change of climate sensitivity from 2–4.5°C with a likely value of 3°C in the IPCC 2007 report, to 1.5–4.5°C with a likely value of 3°C in the IPCC AR5 draft report (more about that here). Not exactly a shocking change and it incorporates latest research on climate sensitivity based on short-term data. Although you have to be careful with the conclusions you draw from those studies. With the current masking of the rise in temperature these type of studies can underestimate climate sensitivity (earlier studies of this type tended to estimate it higher).

So this isn’t the IPCC backing-off from their earlier statements on what the scientific literature says about the likely value. There’s a lot of research that pegs our planets climate sensitivity around 3°C .

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

So.....you don't believe scientists who work for NASA........or ......just some?..........You did reference them in your opening post.

    How is Dr Roy Spencer not a real scientist?   Are you saying NASA don't employ real scientists?......lol.

        

[poddster]

The thing about scientists and doctors is that if you believe what they say they are GOD but if yo do not believe them they are Quacks.

Lots of scientists and doctors want to be GOD so it is in their interest to agree with each other hence the peer review scam

It is a shame that a lot of people are so uneducated that they cant tell the difference between flim flam and reality.

[just_me_karen]

I can tell the difference. It's easy as pie.