International law is unfit to deal with the millions of people expected to flee their home countries to escape droughts and floods intensified by climate change, a group of lawyers said on Thursday.
Under existing laws, host countries must protect and care for cross-border refugees, who are defined as those forced to migrate because of violence or political, racial or religious persecution.
There are no such provisions for so-called climate refugees. Yet by 2050, between 200 million and 1 billion people could be forced to leave their homes because of global warming, said the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development, which advises vulnerable countries and communities.
[...]
What most experts agree on is that rising temperatures will leave an additional 200 million to 600 million people hungry by 2080 and cause critical water shortages in China and Australia, as well as in parts of Europe and the United States, according to a 2007 global climate report.Coastal flooding will also hit another 7 million homes.
Here’s someone else making the same point about a different hockey stick paper. If you filter out proxies, you could just be artificially creating the signal you are trying to find.
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a
#100, Lyin’ Mike,
We all know you didn’t read any of the sources you referenced.
Hiller, A., Boettger, T. & Kremenetski, C. 2001: Medieval climate
warming recorded by radiocarbon dated alpine tree-line shift on
the Kola Peninsula, Russia. The Holocene 11, 491–497
Seppa¨, H. 2001: Long-Term Climate Reconstructions from the Arctic
Tree-line. A NARP Symposium. The Arctic on Thinner Ice.
10–11 May 2001, Oulu, Finland, Abstracts, p. 29.
Hulde´n, L. 2001: Ektunnor och den medeltida va¨rmeperioden i
Satakunda. Terra 113, 171–178.
In fact, I can’t find full texts of any of them on line. Maybe if there was something in any of them that specifically points out Misanthropic Scott’s error then maybe you can point to them. Otherwise, please stop expecting someone to read a report looking for something to bolster YOUR argument.
#101,
Here’s someone else making the same point about a different hockey stick paper. If you filter out proxies, you could just be artificially creating the signal you are trying to find.
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a
The same thing. I am quite sure, giving your history, you have no idea what the hell you just posted.
You post some cryptic concept then expect others to sift through it to find what you mean. This is either extreme laziness on your part or you just copied it from somewhere else and don’t have a fucking clue what this all means.
Did you read this part of his study?
And you still want to filter out the proxies?
Oh ya, that was from pg 2,
Supporting Online Material for
Comment on “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
http://tinyurl.com/yzjgcoe
“The same thing. I am quite sure, giving your history, you have no idea what the hell you just posted.
You post some cryptic concept then expect others to sift through it to find what you mean. This is either extreme laziness on your part or you just copied it from somewhere else and don’t have a fucking clue what this all means.
”
LOL, projecting are we?
Evidence of warming on the Kola Peninsula (c. AD 1000–1300) is provided by treeline studies, which show that pine grew at least 100– 140 m above the modern limit during the Medieval period, which corresponds to a (summer or annual average) temperature at least 0.8°C higher than today (Hiller et al. 2001). A pollen reconstruction from northern Finland suggests that the July mean temperature was c. 0.8°C warmer than today during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (Seppa¨ 2001). A study based on oak barrels, which were used to pay taxes in AD 1250–1300, indicates that oak forests grew 150 km north of their present distribution in SW Finland and this latitudinal extension implies a summer temperature 1–2°C higher than today (Hulde´n 2001).
#103, Lyin’ Mike,
And again, you copy and paste from something you have no idea what it means.
Who did the oak barrel study, where was it done, and what were the parameters? How do they know the oak barrels came from the same area they claim?
And please tell us, do you understand Finnish? Yes, you posted a citation to a study written in Finnish. If you can understand Finnish then fine, but since less than six million people world wide understand it, that would put you in a very small group.
Lyin’ Mike
You still didn’t explain why we should eliminate the proxies from Gerd Bürger’s paper. He even said the assumed noises ranged from 0.1 to 0.7. Do you even realize the significance of that much range? Here, allow me to explain a little, that means he arbitrarily attached anywhere from 10% to 70% of the data as unreliable.
You posted it, you defend it.
It wasn’t Burger’s paper, it was a comment about another paper. Both the paper and the comment were published in Science.
While you’re on reading Finnish, here’s a recent discussion.
translates at tinyurl.com/climsci
Another example is the prestigious journal Science recently published a study in arctic regions, average temperatures are found to be higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. Result may well be true, but the way the researchers conclude that raises questions. Proxy-material has been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, glazed, and the combined – for example, own and my colleagues collected data from Finland in the past has even turned upside down when the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific falsification, which has serious consequences.
This guy is not a skeptic, but I’m sure Joe Romm will hate him anyways.
>you copy and paste from something you have no idea what it means.
It puts in context the papers you were upset about earlier. Here is that paper (pdf).
If you have any graphing ability, or even just by looking at the raw data at
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/reconstructions/arctic/kaufman2009arctic.txt
Compare proxy #20 with figure 5 from the paper.
You will notice the paper has it warmer around 1100, while the data from Kaufman has it cooler.
MikeN,
Sorry for the slow reply. I’ve been busy.
So, you don’t agree with proxies, but then show proxies to show that the little warm period was warmer than today.
So, you’ve made three mistakes. One is that you think that there is something other than proxies that can be used for the time period before we started keeping temperature records around the world.
Mistake number two is that after you criticize the proxies, you then use proxies to make your own case.
Mistake number three is that you seem incapable of separating local from global effects. The paper you cite about the little warm period talks only about the area of the world that was most affected by it.
When you look at the global proxy data, and there is no other data, you see that it was not as warm as today.
In short Mike, it is true that science may make mistakes. However, you look for the imperfections and then throw out the best available science we have, which is really quite overwhelming, and replace it with absolutely nothing.
You complain about the methods used and then show more articles using the same methods. The problem is that most of what you post is blog posts. What little is peer reviewed often doesn’t really say what you think it does.
Further, you don’t examine your sources. Steve McIntyre is long time employee of mining and oil and gas companies. Does this not make you think he might have an agenda? Follow the money.
Not a resume for an unbiased scientist, is it?
MikeN,
Sorry for the slow reply. I’ve been busy.
So, you don’t agree with proxies, but then show proxies to show that the little warm period was warmer than today.
So, you’ve made three mistakes. One is that you think that there is something other than proxies that can be used for the time period before we started keeping temperature records around the world.
Mistake number two is that after you criticize the proxies, you then use proxies to make your own case.
Mistake number three is that you seem incapable of separating local from global effects. The paper you cite about the little warm period talks only about the area of the world that was most affected by it.
When you look at the global proxy data, and there is no other data, you see that it was not as warm as today.
In short Mike, it is true that science may make mistakes. However, you look for the imperfections and then throw out the best available science we have, which is really quite overwhelming, and replace it with absolutely nothing.
You complain about the methods used and then show more articles using the same methods. The problem is that most of what you post is blog posts. What little is peer reviewed often doesn’t really say what you think it does.
Further, you don’t examine your sources. Steve McIntyre is long time employee of mining and oil and gas companies. Does this not make you think he might have an agenda? Follow the money.
From his wikipedia page (link not included due to spam filter)
Not a resume for an unbiased scientist, is it?
MikeN,
Why do you believe the proxy data when it says that the warm period was locally warmer than today, but not when it says that today is the warm period was globally cooler than today?
It seems you believe some proxy data, but not all. In short, it seems you believe proxy data when it makes your point, but not when it makes mine.
BTW, Steve McIntyre is not any kind of scientist. When you cite climateaudit, you’re citing a blog by an employee of mining and energy companies with no scientific training at all.
From wikipedia:
He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford graduating in 1977.[1]
McIntyre worked for 30 years in mineral business[1], the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.[2] He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]
Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.
#107 – MikeN,
Deliberately ignoring the blog post, the climate data you cite is all arctic. You can’t look at global temps that way. The planet does not warm and cool equally around the globe.
Once again, you are mistaking a global phenomenon for a local one.
Face it, you have acquired a viral memeplex that may well cause a mass extinction. You do not own these ideas. You are not the first to question climate science. You do not need to invest so much of your personality in a bad meme.
It’s OK to think about this fresh and really look at the data again and make a rational decision about whether you are qualified to second guess the work of the world’s climate scientists.