Environment Forum

Global warming accelerates; Climategate rumbles on

November 25, 2009

A report by a group of leading scientists that global warming is accelerating and that world sea levels could rise at worst by 2 metres by 2100* is grim reading.

But sceptics are using a flood of leaked e-mails from a British University — dubbed “Climategate” – to question the findings.

You can read the Copenhagen Diagnosis here, by 26 researchers worldwide.  It says a thaw of summer sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, has far outpaced projections in a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) two years ago. They say world emissions must peak by 2020 to avoid the worst of climate change.

They say that sea levels could rise by perhaps a metre, at worst 2 – a figure also mentioned recently by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — and far above scenarios in 2007 by the IPCC. More than 190 nations will meet in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18 to try to agree a new pact to combat global warming.

But the leak of thousands of hacked documents from the University of East Anglia has added fuel to the debate because they include snide comments about climate sceptics and exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming look convincing.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the university, is quoted today as saying that he “absolutely” stands by his findings and says the suggestion that there was a conspiracy to alter evidence was “complete rubbish”.

I’ve had a several e-mails from people who doubt humans are to blame for global warming saying that “Climategate” indicates that the Copenhagen Diagnosis is a new example of alarmism. Will this be a new pattern before Copenhagen?

Experts say the leaks from the University don’t affect conclusions by scientists who found in the 2007 IPCC report that it was more than 90 percent sure that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were to blame for warming over the past 50 years. Governments — including the United States when President George W. Bush was in office — also signed off on those findings.

But the U.S. Senate has not agreed carbon-capping legislation and the leaks are hardly a good argument to persuade waverers to join other industrialised nations in capping carbon emissions.

*by 2100! thanks for pointing out!

(Picture: Icebergs float in the calm waters of a fjord, south of Tasiilaq in eastern Greenland August 4, 2009. REUTERS/Bob Strong)

Comments
77 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

People still don’t get it. The “team” at CRU, U ofPA,AZ and MA, are the bunch that created Global Warming Theory.They mannipulated the data, created self fulfilling data records. They made the UN IPCC Climate Models and managed the results, either directly or indirectly.These IPCC reports and the CRU data sets are the reference source for some 70% of the climate research and it’s all based on fraud. Then they actively worked to crush any views other than AGW. It appeares from their e-mails they conspired to hide funding from the IRS, in the U.S. and RUSSIA, and misuse of funding from backers.So where dose that leave us. The theory that co2 really causes the Global Warming, that hasn’t been occuring for the last 11 years,is very much not proven.In fact ice cores indicate a rise in co2 has never preceded global warming by less than 400-800 years. That means that increasing co2 is the result of warming not the cause. Global Warming THEORY isn’t about co2.It’s never been about co2, and nothing proposed in Cap and Tax, Kyoto, or whatever they come up with in Denmark will make any change in the climate. It’s about control, power and TRILLIONS of dollars. The Global Warming Fraud is just a good way to get there.What i want to know when the Obama EPA distroyes the coal and oil folks, millions more are out of work and we are paying thousands more for goods, services and power, WHO DO WE SUE.

Posted by mac dotson | Report as abusive
 

The existence of mankind on this planet is a blip in the history of our earth–literally just a millimeter in the thousands of kilometers of string that represents time. So? Why worry about climate change. . . Enjoy life while you’re here, and accept the FACT that we will not be here forever. Accept that we THINK we’re important as a species, but without intervention from ???? we are as likely to survive our demise as have dinosaurs !-) Be it virus, biothreat, global warming or meteor–we have only our hope and vanity to support our belief that we deserve to survive.

Posted by brian g. | Report as abusive
 

Marty Kay, do you really think that Carbon Dioxide is a “pollutant” that “brings suffering to all species, including the descendants of the ignorant skeptics?” It may bring warmth (although I am not convinced), but you’d be insane to otherwise call it toxic. International cooperation can be very effective in wiping out real threats, like CFCs in the air or mercury in groundwater, but this CO2 hoax is an enormous waste of resources and efforts.

Posted by Zooropa | Report as abusive
 

I used to be a person you believed completely in climate change, global warming ect. Now after these hacked email release, I totlally changed my mind. I decided to do a search on globl warming, then I took the names of researchers who claimed the science was flawed did a search through the emails. It is amazing to me what is said about the people who claimed there data was flawed, which proved to me this is all a lie! Also I watched a documentary called The Great Global warming swindle, what an eye opener!

Posted by Donniewv | Report as abusive
 

There is no hope in obtaining the truth on the issue of global warming. Copenhagen will go forward and trillions of dollars will be pourded down the drain without knowing why. I have lost faith in the scientific community, journalism, and humanity in general. Its all about agendas and the truth is incidental no matter what side of the argument you are on. Good luck to all and here’s hoping for the rebirth of investigative journalism and the discovery of truth, no matter what side you are on or where it leads us.

Posted by Sam | Report as abusive
 

I do not see how ANY information on global warming can be believed if the data that supports this conclusion currently being has been altered and selectively used. If these emails are not forgeries (AND THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THEM SAY THERE NOT) then the whole global warming theory is unsupported and the “scientists” involved in this con should be arrested for fraud and sent to prison.

Posted by STEVE | Report as abusive
 

Any distortions found in PUBLISHED work needs to be harshly delt with. And conduct like shown in the e-mails referred to here can be left to those folks peers.BUT:Efforts to lower carbon output improves life for everyone everywhere. Cleaner air, water & lands benefit all. Though this may have costs, they are worthwhile costs to date. And a continued modest cost level of carbon reduction should certinly continue to move forward while we consider the data regarding more costly levels of carbon reduction.But with revelations like these released e-mails the more costly efforts are going to need to be put on hold until the truth is fully clear. Such higher costs can’t be imposed under a cloud of doubt. And shame to those behind those e-mails content for causing this, highly unprofessional at minimum & criminal depending on how far it’s shown to have gone.

Posted by Craig | Report as abusive
 

Icebergs are so beautiful. It’s sadly ironic that they’re often the result of breakage due to climate change.

Posted by Camron Barth | Report as abusive
 

Every now-n-then I get to read about global warming in lots of post while surfing net.We all know that present situation and problems are very small compared to the future upcoming ones if we don’t take necessary and appropriate steps preventing Global warming and protecting mother earth.

 

Having ice top and bottom is NICE. Because if not then there is no WIND in the willows. No waves or Fishes in the sea. No Birds in the Air. No windmills. Even worse no Wind blowing up the Skirts of the Laydies.

Posted by Eden and Apple | Report as abusive
 

Global warming is not caused by cow manure, it is caused by bulls__t. Not the kind produced by animals, but the type produced by people like Gore, Mann, Jones, et al.The work of great scientists like Darwin and Einstein are still considered theories, Why?, because they are still unproven. The theories put forth by the above mentioned and probably somewhat less enlightened people, are however, already accepted by many, as fact. After all, “the science is settled” , “there is no need for debate”. The Phrophet-teer Gore has told us so. “No need for debate”? Boy, with that type of scientific reasoning, I can hardly wait to see what the future holds. Mr. Gore should be given an Honorary Degree from the Seminary School he flunked out of. He has, after all, become the “High Priest” of the “Global Warming” movement. Even though he doesn’t practice what he preaches. There has already been enough pain and suffering caused in this world by the many different religions throughout history. The last thing we need is another one.The alarmists want immediate action on legislation so that in ten to twenty years, when possible natural climate cooling takes place, they can take credit for saving the world. In the meantime the enormous grant money entitlements given to the CRU and all other pro-global Warming (climate change) research groups will go on unabated for years to come.I, like most, if not all of the people alive today won’t be around to see the consequences of whatever actions our world leaders take in the near future. It is my opinion that the world won’t be destroyed by “Climate Change”, but rather by propaganda driven policies that will more likely lead to starvation, poverty, war and destruction, than to solving any “flawed science” theory.I can remember a time when Reuters, Associated Press and the MSM were credible news agencies. How I long to return to that time. Unfortunately, it seems gone forever. A shame really, and on this, there is “no need for debate”.

Posted by Larry Ballinger | Report as abusive
 

Larry Ballinger, Einstein’s work is still called the “theory” of relativity, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s unproven. It’s predictions have been seen everywhere from Mercury’s orbit to the atomic bomb.Global Warming’s predictions, on the other hand, included higher tempertures. When that didn’t pan out, it became “climate change,” whose predictions seem to include whatever happened the day before.

 

We went to war in Iraq based on a fictional threat of weapons of mass destruction. We are still in Iraq now and blood is still being spilled.By the logic of those actions it should be nothing for us to begin initiatives to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change even if humans have nothing to do with it.Climate change represents a problem that everyone can get behind. It can be used as a rallying call to bring the US economy back from the brink. We can develop new clean technologies that would provide work and business opportunity for everyone.It would be like going to war under false pretenses, except that the result would be a cleaner healthier living environment for all people instead of mindless bloodshed and endless conflict.So what if it turns out to be a lie? We accept war and death by way of lies and it means nothing to us. We simply justify it and move on. Why could we not do the same with global warming/climate change?It seems to me that if we are going to be delusional about things our actions may as well produce good results.

 

@drewbie: Don’t want to get into a peeing contest. Einstein had many theories, not all of which have been proven. That is to my knowledge, which is somewhat limited.Did enjoy your response.

Posted by Larry Ballinger | Report as abusive
 

Gotcha. Physics (and science in general) is my background, so I’m oversensitive to stuff like that. Some theories are solid (Einstein), and others still require constant tweaking (evironmental, some biological, and economical).

 

If global warming really was caused by variations of the sun or other non-human causes, the oil and coal companies would be releasing studies showing it. Instead, they fund what are essentially Public Relations efforts designed to delay action, so they can continue to rake in their profits as long as possible.There are many corporations which have smart scientists able to figure out the science for themselves. They are endorsing action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and already taking action to reduce their own corporate emissions.It is sad to read of those who parrot coal company advertisements saying that carbon dioxide is plant food. Carbon dioxide within limits is fine. Not too little, not too much, juuust right. But right now carbon dioxide concentrations in our air are higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of year. If we continue burning all the coal and oil that was buried in the times of the dinosaurs, we will return to the hot conditions that prevailed during those times. In that case, say farewell to our present civilization.I would like to think that we are smarter than that.

Posted by AIC | Report as abusive
 

This article seems like a lot of hype.IPCC says 12″ in their last report, and their previous reports have shown that claims have been way overstated before. Coming off the little ice age we have had about 2mm of increase in ocean level per year. This is over hundreds of years. And IPCC says it will continue at the same rate. How is that global warming. And 2 meters, I think it is exaggerated bunk that is being put out to try to scare everyone after we found out that much of the catastrophic AGW data has been severely cooked to get the results looking the way they should, and that only sympathetic scientists were allowed to analyze the results, so there was no true peer review.

Posted by Mark | Report as abusive
 

Aren’t these new dire warnings being issued by the same group of people who are under scrutiny in the CRU hack? After reading the e-mails and some of the other files, I would say that these new observations are basically worthless. The IPCC’s science has been totally discredited. I can’t believe a reputable news service is not responsible enough to print ALL of the story.

Posted by Nanner T. | Report as abusive
 

The 2007 IPCC report did everyone a great disservice by not explaining that they had radically changed the basis sample for their sea level rise prediction and nobody caught it. What changed from 2001 to 2007 was tha the IPCC did not include the possible melt stats for Greenland or Antarctica because a disagreement on the various predictions and models. So it looked like they had lowered the sea level prediction but in fact all they did was change the reporting basis. In reality when you add back in even the most conservative estimates for Greenland and Antarctica using the data gathered since 2001 and especially the recent data and the IPCC estimate is way low. The actual rise will be above 7 ft. and maybe as much as 20 ft. according to many different groups of scientists.

 

@A/C. Where are scientists who disagree with the “consensus” supposed to publish their findings? Peer-reviewed literature? Ooooh yeah, dissenters are unwelcome, didn’t you get the memo?

Posted by gwynplaine | Report as abusive
 

Yes, you really have to read on this all closer; climate change supporters have everything covered!We had global cooling, now we have global warming. When the real world weather does not match the global warming prediction, we have “global dimming”.Yup, look it up! Global dimming.

Posted by Heather | Report as abusive
 

I’ve looked through some of the code and the now infamous “Harry Read Me.txt” file. The programmer complains about corrupted data, no documentation, and having to make things up (weather station data) to get the results they want.What a catastrophe

Posted by Denbo | Report as abusive
 

90% sure isnt good enough when you are using it as an excuse for tax upon tax in the name of global warming/climate change, I prefer to use the latter.That would be the equvalent of sitting an examanation and answwering a question with….I am 90% sure tht this is the answer. If your not 100% sure then wait until you are 100% sure before you start to act on figures.

Posted by tom | Report as abusive
 

Visit the following items for an independent view of:
Global Warming & ClimateGate
-
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2009/12  /global-warming-climategate.html
-
LBHagen@RoanokeSlant.org
-

Posted by lbhagen | Report as abusive
 

Scientists project global warming to continue at a rate that is unprecedented in hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of Earth’s history. They predict considerably more warming in the 21st century, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions. For a scenario (possible situation) assuming higher emissions—in which emissions continue to increase significantly during the century—scientists project further warming of 2.4 to 6.4 Celsius degrees (4.3 to 11.5 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. For a scenario assuming lower emissions—in which emissions grow slowly, peak around the year 2050, and then fall—scientists project further warming of 1.1 to 2.9 Celsius degrees (1.9 to 5.2 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100.
Melting polar ice and glaciers, as well as warming of the oceans, expands ocean volume and raises sea level, which will eventually flood some coastal regions and even entire islands. Patterns of rainfall are expected to change, with higher latitudes (closer to the poles) projected to receive more rainfall, and subtropical areas (such as the Mediterranean and southern Africa) projected to receive considerably less. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may damage food crops, disrupting food production in some parts of the world. Plant and animal species will shift their ranges toward the poles or to higher elevations seeking cooler temperatures, and species that cannot do so may become extinct. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also leads to increased ocean acidity, damaging ocean ecosystems.
Human beings face global warming with a huge population at risk. The potential consequences are so great that many of the world’s leading scientists—and increasingly, politicians, business leaders, and other citizens—are calling for international cooperation and immediate action to counteract the problem.

Posted by khairmuhammad | Report as abusive
 

I would like to point out three facts to all of these environmentalists that are crying wolf about global warming. 1. The polar ice caps on mars have disapeared. Have you seen any SUVs driving around there? 2. The earth will heal itself. My example for this is … The Mayan temples in Mexico and Guatemala can hardly be discovered because the jungles have grown back so thickly. This ocurred in a relatively short period of 7-8 hundred years. 3. I spent some time in central Texas. One of my favorite activities was fossil hunting. Do you realize that that whole area of Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma was covered by a shallow sea. My point of all this is that earth and nature are generated in cycles. Whether you are talking about population levels or wheather cycles. I think that these are all natural processes and that it is very anthrocentric to think we can control any of it. This does not mean that we should not conserve or take care of our wild places. We as Americans do a pretty good job of taking care of the environment.

My problem with the climate change religion is that I think it is a “Progressive Movement”. Avatar in my opinion was just a propoganda campaign for global warming. I thought it was the comic book version of Dances with Wolves. I enjoyed Dances with Wolves because I don´t think it had a political message hidden in it. My other problem with this religion is that their solutions are mandated.Why is carbon given an economic value? It is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Sounds like distribution of wealth to me? Environmentalists would have more success if they just spoke about the need for conservation and the harm of overconsumption. Globalization is a fact of life now. There are alot of us people, we are the predominant animal on earth. I think environmentalists would be surprised by the universal agreement there would be if they just toned down the doom and gloom. We have to learn to live with nature, we all understand that. What is ironic to me is that hunters are some of the best conservationists.

Posted by gamboa | Report as abusive
 

This sort of stuff is my sphere of work so I tend to get to know what’s actaully happening rather than what the media is reporting and what the public are being told after the politicians have edited the scientific reports.

Climatology is a relatively young science and we’re learning a lot as we go along, the technology is coming along in leaps and bounds so we can make ever more accurate predictions.

GW is accelerating slightly faster than the public may otherwise believe but still within the range predicted by scientists. For example, the actual rise in average global temps is 0.0177°C per year as opposed to the published figure of 0.0156°C.

Some things are changing faster than expected. For example, it had been though that the Arctic ice would be permenant feature of the planet for the next 100 years, more recent evalauations show it’s likely to disappear completely each summer in about 40 years, if the rate of melting observed in the last year is repeated then it will be gone in less than 25 years (2007 is the hottest year on record so far and as such it’s likely that this years Arctic ice retreat was greater than the future norm).

In a couple of months the IPCC will release a further report, it will state that the world is warming that bit faster than previously though.

http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.c om/

Posted by kevinride | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •