Tropes

popsci_2013 01852.txt

#Climate Change Will related Increase Heat Deaths In NYC, Study Sayswarming weather could make summer in the city deadly in the next few decades according to a study published this week in Nature Climate Change. By the 2020s New york city will see 22 percent more heat-related deaths per year compared with 1980s the researchers predicted. Urban centers like New york city are especially sensitive to extreme temperatures because of the heat island effect. The Environmental protection agency estimates that the annual mean temperature of a city with a million or more people can be up to 5. 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than its more rural surroundings. NYC currently clocks in with more than 8 million. Using 16 computer models of present and future climate change scientists at Columbia University and the Chinese Center for disease control and Prevention found that while warmer temperatures would reduce the number of deaths due to cold in the winter the increase in heat-related deaths in summer months would cause a net 6. 2 percent spike in weather-related mortality per year in the city by the 2020s. By the 2080s there could be as much as a 91 percent increase in heat deaths compared to 1980s levels: What our study suggests is that the heat effects of climate change dominate the winter warming benefits that might also come: climate change will cause more deaths through heat than it will prevent during winter lead author Patrick Kinney a professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University told The Guardian. The study did not take into account potential changes in the use of air conditioning heat alerts or cooling shelters in the future. Those factors can help mitigate the risk of extreme heat for vulnerable populations like the elderly. The Guardian And will also decrease cold-related deaths which outnumber heat-related deaths: http://www. cdc. gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/heatandcold. htmon another note the computer models have failed consistently to predict global temperatures overstating temperature increases by more than 100%and failing to predict the non-warming since 1998. Why would we think they would get heat-related death predictions right? http://www. aps. org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton. cfmfor the last 150 yeas the magnetic field of the Earth is getting small and in most recent times scientist have note the drease to begaining speed. It is highly possible that the Earth is in the process of a magnetic pole flip. During the transition the magnetic field of the Earth will get extremely low and for a while will have multiple north and south poles around the Earth with the Earth being hit extemely hard by solar radation. There might even be a period that the Earth will have no magnetic field with the Earth being hit hardest by solar radtion. This could reduce life On earth drastically but not completely. Eventually the magnetic field will start up and the opposite of poles will be come true that the North magnetic pole will be on the bottom of the Earth. Also coincidentally since the industrial revolution or the last 150 years I noted above the industrial revolution has been noted as a source of possible global warming. Perhaps if the magnetic field of Earth is diminishing and more solar radiation is coming into Earth could be an additional cause of global warming. Interesting supporting links of Earths shrinking magnetic field on planet EARTH. After understand the process ask yourself then how would it effect our environment. Earth's Magnetic field Is Fading http://news. nationalgeographic. com/news/2004/09/0909 040909 earthmagfield. htmlmagnetic Storm http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about. htmlthe Pole Shift has started August 18 2012 The Earth s magnetic field is weakening and moving. http://fuel-efficient-vehicles. org/energy-news/?/p=1146earth s Weakening Magnetic field http://modernsurvivalblog. com/pole-shift-2/earths-weakening-magnetic-field/Add the sun natural cycles then add human induced carbon warming finally the reduction of the Earths magnetic field which could have the largest effect on the environment and few are talking about and taking into account global warming spells a changing world for humanity predicated in religious apocalyptic history of they sky turning to fire. If humanity does survive its size will be of the tiniest percentage in a new world completely alien to anything we have known. It will be awhile until this new addition of global warming becomes mainstream simply because there is nothing we can do about it. Lastly the whole process of the pole switch is really slow which can make it a subtle thing to ingore in the beginning; a thousand years more less slow. Global Warming is a load of dog crap. If UN'scientists'{politicians) were compelled to disclose how much money is being spent on monitoring global temperatures we'd find that it's in the hundreds of millions if not billions. Comparing that to the data that was gathered 100 or more years ago is like comparing apples to oranges. Especially when we're talking about less than 1 degree difference over that time frame. Anyone that disagrees would he faced with a contradiction when it comes to justifying the money being spent. If 100 year old data is just as good then the UN/USA budget shouldn't require costly data we don't need it a few thermometers a supply of pencils and some log books should suffice. Oh and if you need proof that Global Warming is a hoax. I'll give you a name that will prove it...Hillary Clinton (as just one example) She's a Global Warming crony. Would anyone like her who really buys into these apocalyptic forecasts turn around and push for legislation that gives illegal aliens drivers licenses? Why would she want tens of millions of additional greenhouse gas producing vehicles on the road threatening the very existence a new generation of Clintons? The answer is simple...she knows it's load of shit just like the rest of these criminals do but they also know that you're too stupid to see through it.@@hockeytruth-The follow the money argument would only be logical if oil corporations weren't spending billions on climate change denial. -Comparing temperature records from the past is like comparing Gala to Ambrosia apples. They're the same thing you just have to work around some differences. Berkely Earth led by skeptics and funded in part by the Koch Foundation (firm deniers) did a survey of 1. 6 billion data points taking into account the issues skeptics had with data quality and comparisons. They found that Earth is warming just as much as UN scientists have concluded. -1. 5c increase over 200 years is actually a very big deal. The only times we can tell the Earth warmed that abruptly was during massive events such as large meteorite impact or basalt traps degassing. None of those have happened in the last 200 years. -Randomly saying a name is not proof. Bush Sr and Jr were big oil crony's . But saying so doesn't give proof of anything. -The immigration reform has nothing to do with climate change. Just because someone advocates for climate change mitigation doesn't mean they can't deal with other completely unrelated policies. Not even a ripple of interest in the Earth magnetism reduction no comments lol. This is easily verified via the science community; Google it. tertertert where do you see a 1. 5c increase over 200 years? The NOAA global instrumental temperature record the one that shows the largest increase in temperatures of all the different records shows about a 1 to 1. 2c increase. http://en. wikipedia. org /wiki/File: NOAA LAND. svgother records show less than 1c warming in the last 200 years even the ones by global warming acolytes like Phil Jones for example: http://junksciencearchive. com/MSU TEMPS/NHTRCOMP. htmland there are problems with the NOAA instrumental record due to poor siting. A lot of the measured warmth is due to increasing urban heat island effects at poorly sited measuring stations. http://pielkeclimatesci. files. wordpress. com/2011/07/r-367. pdfandhttp://wattsupwiththat . files. wordpress. com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport spring09. pdfthe NOAA has acknowledged siting problems brought to their attention and has started recently to limit the temperature data to higher quality measuring stations. Now if you expand the time scale back 1400 years using proxy temperature data it's becomes obvious that there is nothing unusual about the warming of the last 200 years. In fact it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and the warming of the last 200 years appears to be a correction after the Little Ice age just before it: http://hurricane. ncdc. noaa. gov/pls/paleox/f? p=519:1: 876114133735201:::P1 study id: 13358 (You have to download the data--for example to Excel --and generate the graph yourself.)The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project was an attempt to address the poor siting problems of NOAA measuring stations affected by the increasing urban heat island effect; a serious issue that meteorologist Anthony Watts has raised and the NOAA has tried to correct in recent years. Unfortunately the selection criteria of BEST and the resolution chosen do virtually nothing to rule out the urban heat island effect as Anthony Watts points out here: http://wattsupwiththat. com/2013/04/04/berkeley-earth-very-rural-and-not/As for following the money the global warming alarmist community rakes in easily a hundred times as much money as the skeptics who contrary to your statement don't spend billions--or anywhere near it. What little they do spend goes to funding research and programs to educate people on what the science really says which is pretty much that nothing unusual at all is happening. And rapid warming--even more than what we saw in the 20th century--is not unusual. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now and the temperatures rose just as fast. See the Wikipedia article here: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Medieval warm periodpay close attention to the graph. It looks like the warming in 2000 is greater than around 1000 AD because of the bogus black line. Ignore the black line and look at the other colors. Temperatures peak just before 2000 and begin to decline. The black line is an instrumental temperature record superimposed on the colored lines which are proxy temperature records; in other words mixing apples and oranges. It's a perfect example of the Nature trick that Michael Mann employed on his famous hockey stick graph: end the temperature proxy record just as temperatures start to go down again and graft onto it an unrelated instrument temperature graph to hide the decline as Phil Jones put it. It's surprising to what lengths the global warming alarmists in the science community will go to purposely deceive the public to further their agenda. Remember Climategate and Climategate II? Okay wonder I'll comment on the weakening of the earth's magnetic field. It's happening. But it has weakened and increased in the past too without dire consequences. The Wikipedia article states: The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks. laurenra7 Thank you for responding.;Ignore the bogus black line. OH so we should just accept the data that conforms with your bias. Seriously...If climate wasn't a concern why is ranked it in the top ten threats to national security? Why are insurance companies paying close attention to it? Because they're having to pay out on claims from increased annual storm damage is why. There's scientific consensus on this issue. Deal with it. You're trying to look at the same data that these scientists are supposedly falsifying and drawing from it conclusions that go against the data when it suits you. You have a selective filter that ignores anything that goes against your preconceived conclusions. Sorry that's not how science works. The climategate BS was exactly that. Snippets taken completely out of context and drummed up by Fox news . If you were to research the matter you'd see why it'S BS. These computer models you speak of give ranges of temperature increases btw. There's a high end and a low end but either either scenario or range in between shows a warming. The cooling that you speak of is very short term. You don't discern a trend from short term and go Look! There's cooling! when the trend CLEARLY shows an increase. There are ups and downs but if you look at the trend it's one direction; up. We just hit 400ppm CO2 concentrations. Highest in 3 million years. Oh but CO2 is good for plants. Can I expect that rebuttal? Frosttty and D37 let's handle the so-called 97%consensus first. It's from a recent web survey. 10257 Earth scientists were sent a 2-question survey. 3146 responded. The study authors culled that down to 77 scientists. 75 of them answered yes to the 2nd question. 75 divided by 77 is 97.4%.%So 75 people is translated into 97%of climate scientists. Not very convincing eh? Now about ignoring the black line in the graph: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Medieval warm perioddid you notice that all the colored lines--the proxy data from tree rings and ice cores--showed temperatures going down exactly where the one black line representing measured temperatures continues to go up? 10 graphs show temperatures going down and only 1 shows temperatures going up? And the 1 that goes up is a completely different kind of data than the rest according to the notes? That doesn't look suspicious to you? Statistician Steve Mcintyre shreds the idea of superimposing instrument data on proxy data with dizzying detail here: http://climateaudit. org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/#comment-340175michael Mann father of the infamous Hockey stick temperature graph that kicked off the first IPCC report claiming catastrophic warming said this: No researchers in this field have ever to our knowledge'grafted the thermometer record onto'any reconstruction. Analysis of his 1998 graph shows clearly that he DID in fact graft the thermometer record or rather he padded the data from the thermometer record (Mike's Nature trick...to...hide the decline: http://wattsupwiththat. com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/But Mann's own trickery is beside the point. The implication by Mann isas is understood widely by climate scientists and statisticians--that mixing different kinds of data is bad science. Yet what we see in the graph I pointed to earlier which is found on several Wikipedia articles is the grafting of a thermometer record onto proxy reconstructions: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Proxy %28climate%29even the pillars of global warming science agree that it's not kosher. But the graph is still useful if you ignore the bad black line for seeing the proxy data from 10 different studies. Also as I pointed out there are problems with the instrumental temperature data which likely reflect a lot of urban heat island effect. Follow the links above for more by meteorologist Anthony Watts. Next up James Hansen. He's the one who has been arrested several times protesting--twice at the White house over the Keystone pipeline --and gave us these gems: Over centuries we could actually get a runaway greenhouse effect and then that's it for all the species on this planet. The greenhouse effect) means once the planet gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate...You can get to a situation where the oceans begin to boil and the planet becomes so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere. And that happened to Venus...Hansen's research at NASA focused initially on studying the atmosphere of Venus which is 96%CO2 (Earth's is 0. 039%CO2 or 390 parts per million ppm). He postulated theories for how the atmosphere of Venus may have formed using computers to generate scenarios. He's one of several scientists who think Venus may have had as much water as Earth a long time ago although there is no current physical evidence to substantiate that theory. It was a simple leap of faith for Hansen to then suppose that Earth would suffer the same fate. Thus runaway greenhouse effect and catastrophic global warming. This despite the fact that the Earth had 3 to 5 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere (1000 to 2000 ppm) during the Jurassic period which teemed with life. How about that CO2? Right new we're at around 398 ppm. Assuming human activity is responsible for most of the increase (highly dubious) and that it increases by about 3 ppm per year (higher than the current rate) by 2050 we may reach 500 ppm. The good news is that by 2050 human CO2 emissions will likely have peaked. China and India two of the most populous countries On earth will have reached a point in their development where they will start to curb emissions just as the U s. and other post-industrial nations have and their populations will also be in decline as is the case for most post-industrial nations right now which means an even greater decline in emissions. But for the sake of argument say we drift all the way up to 600 ppm before it starts to abate. What does that mean? If the past is any indication pretty much nothing. No runaway greenhouse effect no massive increase in sea levels. You see based on observations of the relationship of CO2 and warming it appears that CO2 is a negative feedback for warming not a positive feedback as all the computer models (James Hansen's included) keep predicting. Even purely theoretically in a closed system (like a greenhouse) temperature increases logarithmically as CO2 increases; not exponentially or even linearly. The more CO2 you put in the less it raises temperatures. So I'll take Hansen's predictions with a grain of salt thank you. And magnetic pole reversals D37? There is no evidence that humans have any effect or can do anything about it or that it's even imminent. So I'll take your sky is falling warning also with a grain of salt. Lastly Frosttty about temperature trends. Trends depend entirely on where you pick your start and end points. So here are some graphs: 34 years (1979-2013) satellite measurements: http://www. drroyspencer. com/wp-content/uploads/UAH LT 1979 THRU APR 2013 V5. 5. png130 years (1880-present) instrumental measurements: http://www. ncdc. noaa. gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112. png2000 years 10 proxy reconstructions: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File: 2000 year temperature comparison. pngas explained twice please ignore the black line which is an incorrect superimposing of thermometer records on proxy records. 12000 years 8 proxy reconstructions with average (black line: http://commons. wikimedia. org/wiki/File: Holocene temperature variations. png450000 years 2 proxy reconstructions from Antarctic ice cores: http://commons. wikimedia. org/wiki/File: Ice age temperature. pngplease tell us from these graphs if the current trend is warming or cooling or the long term trend is warming or cooling. While you're at it see if you can identify any catastrophic human-caused warming in these graphs.@@tertertert-The follow the money argument would only be logical if oil corporations weren't spending billions on climate change denial. This is classic the euphemism for it would be a convenient truth. The operative word is euphemism because of course there is no truth to it. Al gore and his flunkies are in the habit of making one erroneous claim after the next expecting that the public will accept is a truth so long as it's repeated often enough. Oil companies have ZERO incentive to engage in'Global Warming Denial'whatever that is. 1. Oil is the only game in town and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. So they face no significant threat. 2. They have need no to deny fallacies it's counter-intuitive to even refer to dismissing an unsubstantiated theory as denial. In the future before you make these flippant claims be prepared to back them up with references. Just because Al gore seems to get away with similarly outrageous claims it doesn't provide a green light for you to do the same. Keep in mind that 99%of the audiences Gore speaks to are like preaching to the choir. They'll applaud him if he passes gas.@@frosttty If climate wasn't a concern why is ranked it in the top ten threats to national security? Why are insurance companies paying close attention to it? Because they're having to pay out on claims from increased annual storm damage is why. This could easily be countered by asking why Al gore himself was involved so heavily in campaigning for global free trade (remember the debates with Ross Perot? Why was old Al pushing policies that were inevitably going to lead to the industrialization of China which in turn will at minimum double CO2 emissions? Why are politicians like Hillary Clinton and other Global Warming cronies pushing to hand out drivers licenses to tens of millions of 3rd world illegal aliens who wouldn't be driving if they were sent back to where they belong? Very peculiar isn't it? Why aren't they worried about the next generation of Gore's and Clinton's being turned in to french fries in the global warming crisis? Where are their priorities? like Joan implied I am dazzled that anybody can profit $7249 in four weeks on the computer. have you read this web link Go to site and open Home for details>>>WWW. dub30. CO O

< Back - Next >