They can’t be wrong, because they’re scientists.

They can’t be wrong, because they’re scientists. And it’s eight years later, because that’s how time works

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/today-is-the-deadline-to-stop-global-warming-or-climate-change-or-whatever-were-calling-it-this-week/

no denying that we've passed the deadline that the scientists from UN said we must absolutely heed we'd see a 2C average global rise.....it been 8 years and a couple days.

and snow in Denver on Mother's Day.  Somehow Mother Nature didn't get the dire message....

A little humor on NatureScapes is always refreshing.

But the situation is not humorous, it's perilous!

JM

Don Nelson wrote:They can’t be wrong, because they’re scientists. And it’s eight years later, because that’s how time works

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/today-is-the-deadline-to-stop-global-warming-or-climate-change-or-whatever-were-calling-it-this-week/

no denying that we've passed the deadline that the scientists from UN said we must absolutely heed we'd see a 2C average global rise.....it been 8 years and a couple days.

and snow in Denver on Mother's Day.  Somehow Mother Nature didn't get the dire message....

and drought in California, because of too much snow ?

Stop watching Fox News.It may be detrimental to your health.

I never heard eight years. I think maybe by 2050 some have said we might hit a tipping point but even then it is all speculative due to the overwhelming number of factors that go into trying to predict. I'm not sure I have ever heard a reputable climate scientist make any claims without some caveats. The biggest factor and fear is the thawing of the tundra which has stayed frozen for millions of years and the sudden release of carbon from all it's thick layer of dead material. Most as in this article state "by the end of the century" for a 2 degree rise..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ry-general

And then the disappearing ice cover will allow the earth to absorb more and more UV sun energy rather than reflecting it as it has for the last 32 million years. That has to be a big event difficult to predict.

http://theconversation.com/what-climate ... -for-27108

According to that article we are already getting measurements OVER 400 parts per million now.

There's no doubt people will always be around and will find a way to adapt. Course most will starve as the planets hot dry areas take over and land is lost to higher water levels and most nature as we now know it will become extinct but this has happened in the past and the planet just marches on..

No problem...


Paul

Here's what the scientists really said:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technolo ... e20210954/

Basically what I already have said what they said:



"Without changes in greenhouse gas emissions, “climate change risks are likely to be high or very high by the end of the 21st century,” the report says."

they further say:

"The report says if the world continues to spew greenhouse gases at its accelerating rate, it’s likely that by mid-century temperatures will increase by about another 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (two degrees Celsius) compared to temperatures from 1986 to 2005. And by the end of the century, that scenario will bring temperatures that are about 6.7 degrees warmer (3.7 degrees Celsius)."



I guess it's all a  big joke...Ha-ha-ha........



"While projections show that the world will warm and climate will change, there’s still a level of uncertainty about how much, and that makes the problem all about how much risk we accept, said MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel."


So if this is in their report where are and what are the names of the scientists that claimed in 8 years we will be 2 degrees C warmer?? Clearly a misrepresentation of facts and what was said and things taken out of context in order to accomplish some red herring tactics so as to fit biased personal agendas.

Here is the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change report for 2014. I would recommend everyone without exception read it for their own good and for those who skew the facts who also would be sincere in getting them straight to read also:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... L_full.pdf

Starting on page 72(the pdf page number, not report no.)



"Key drivers of future climate and the basis on which projections are madeCumulative emissions of CO2largely determine global mean surface
 warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic
development and climate policy.Climate models are mathematical representations of processes important in the Earth’s climate system. Results from a hierarchy of climate models are considered in this report; ranging from simple idealized models, to models of intermediate complexity, to comprehensive General Circulation Models (GCMs), including Earth System Models (ESMs) that also simulate the carbon cycle. The GCMs simulate many climate
aspects, including the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans, precipitation, winds, clouds, ocean currents and sea-ice extent. The
models are extensively tested against historical observations.

In order to obtain climate change projections, the climate models use information described in scenarios of GHG and air pollutant emissions and land use patterns. Scenarios are generated by a range of
approaches, from simple idealised experiments to Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs, see Glossary). Key factors driving changes in
anthropogenic GHG emissions are economic and population growth, lifestyle and behavioural changes, associated changes in energy use and land use, technology and climate policy, which are fundamentally uncertain."

But if one starts on pg 72 and keeps going the facts can hardly be ignored. And clearly everywhere they state openly and honestly that projections are not realities and can be not as bad or can be worse. But the work of all the people and institutions starting on page 151 should convince anyone the report is no joke and should be taken seriously.

The IPCC is the most comprehensive and reliable source for the problem we have. If some fringe scientists or someone who misrepresents their reports says 8 years and 2 degrees c, are we to give them any weight at all over what the IPCC actually says??  Obviously if someone does prefer the one or two fringe voices they are being ignorant to the overwhelming amount of data we now utilize in our assessments. They also are grabbing for anything that will bolster their particular bias. But to ignore millions of pieces of empirical evidence, tens of thousands of people dedicated and working on the problem, thousands and thousands of sensitive instruments across the globe and in space monitoring with precision the whole dynamic of the problem from sea ice to temp changes to glacier movement to chemical analysis of water and air to monitoring of wildlife and natural habits to human impacts of cities, roads, chemical effects...and a plethora of others is so mind boggling irresponsible and reprehensible but darn right unforgivably stupid.




Paul

pleverington wrote:. The biggest factor and fear is the thawing of the tundra which has stayed frozen for millions of years and the sudden release of carbon from all it's thick layer of dead material. Most as in this article state "by the end of the century" for a 2 degree rise..

 I agree on this one. In fact there is a layer of methyl hydrate trapped underneath the Siberian Tundra that is already blowing out with warming.  Do a google search on mysterious holes in Siberia.   There are two theories, both show effect of global warming -- one is pingos melting releasing methane(methyl hydrates but not big explosion) and a second theory of metal hydrates exploding.

Below is the actual quote from a 2007 Guardian article referenced by the author of the Daily Caller piece which he obviously misconstrued.

"...The report said global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2C..."

The intended meaning in 2007 was that emissions would have to begin falling in 2016 to prevent a temperature rise from exceeding 2C, whenever that maximum occurred at some point in the future.

If scientists can be blamed for anything, it's for their faith that reporters and the general public will have the reading skills to correctly interpret conditional statements.

Thanks for finding that original source Gary. I had been looking for it, but as always on the net, I got sidetracked to other links for too long.  And your interpretation is also what I figured as to what was happening and at the root of such off base commentary. Yes I think people need just the hard core simple one statement summary--we are killing ourselves..... Any detailed account of such events seems to not only loose most, but also give them a chance to cherry pick that which suits there liking.

I did a thread a couple of years ago about the very same thing you just brought up Don. I had no idea what a problem the calthrates were and how much of them there are. More doo-doo I'm afraid we are in.....

A show came on this morning that I had not seen before and as I have Utube set to automatically play the next show in sequence of subject search, I usually get surprises and learn things I would not normally have run across.

This one is truly soul shaking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_pb1G2wIoA

Humans often talk about this world in terms of "sustainability" as if that is some official yardstick to measure how much we take from it. The fishing industry is a prime example. I see a lot of problems with this thinking philosophy. For one the inter-connectivity of life is far too intricate and still unknown to us. Over and over we make assumptions that turnout to be wrong. We are always biased to things we WANT to believe. Fisherman WANT to believe there were endless sources of Cod for example or that there was nothing wrong with genetically engineered corn-who would have thought that would be bad for the monarch?
And then what about the life on this planet to begin with. Are we to continue to believe that the whole planet with all it's life are solely here for us? Do we believe this because any other way would mean a very tough go? Does circle of life logic and survival of the fittest claims mean taking down everything?? Do the animals of this planet, our fellow inhabitants, have the right to be here whether we ordain it or not???  Or is it all up to only us?? Is this some God's will? Do we pass that buck and just put it on some fictional omnipotent supreme character and scape responsibility??

Secondly we need to understand the wimpy factor. That thing that mankind has endlessly tried to shake off as "that which is weak and inferior". The "Bleeding heart" fallacy argument. "The Liberals are destroying everything cause they do not abide by the laws of nature", aka survival of the fittest, and must be not only stopped..... but humiliated.
There is a prevalent contemptuous feeling for the weak, the caring, those that show there feelings or wear their hearts on their sleeves. This is rather inborn to our thinking. 800 years of the coliseum killing millions of animals to demonstrate man's dominance over the "beast" confirms this. Yet we thrive because of intellect and intellect trumps brute strength when it plays out to strategy. However we still don't fully let go of our primitive past here which now is a real problem to getting things done. There is a real collective contempt for all things that hint of caring for animals, for the environment. I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has to endure ribbing and ridicule for showing care for such things. It happens constantly. But we need to rid our collective thinking in the world of that misrepresentation of the truth if we are save it. We need to get over ourselves and start thinking in real terms that this planet is NOT here for us and like any predator who hunts his area out...... will perish.

And that...Ta Da....would be the true balance of nature playing itself out. Our brains made us what we are and are all we have to save ourselves. There is getting to be little room left for machismo, egos trying to hold back inferiorities and insecurities.  

But watch the film I linked to, maybe some of you have seen it already. Towards the end they echo exactly what I have been trying to say all along. Our buildings are half the problem, our cars are 20% the problem, and both of these things are something all of us can take measures to alleviate and help with, It is up to us.

The government can't do it, science can't do it, religion won't do it, big business isn't the savior...its you and its me. But keep in mind all those institutions ARE just people and once things get going more and more they will be powerful factors to the cure

As you go about your day today ask yourself what have you done personally to help with the global warming problem. Are you insulated well, do you cut back, do you mind your waste, are your windows a BTU portal, are you taking advantage of the Sun for passive and active energy, are you at least thinking of an electric car, small windmills are cheap enough now, how about taking advantage of the BTU sea beneath your feet, how about some bicycle travel once and a while, change over to electric solar charged lawn equipment for less noise, no pollution, ...better yet just get rid of your lawn, are you planting things to help sustain wildlife and insects.......

If your not doing anything then you are the problem. They say battery pricing will be coming down dramatically pretty soon- be on the look out. I think writing your politicians would be very helpful.

Anything you do will serve as an influence and perhaps inspiration to others also, so keep that in mind too.

Paul

Very well said Paul.