By Here we go again with the Doomsday predictions. If anyone is wondering why a Korea blog follows the ongoing issue of global warming, this is a perfect example of how the alarmists can use global warming hysteria to push their own agendas in South Korea:
Korea’s climate will change much faster than previously believed, a government report says, and the country will see the same amount of change over the next decade as over the whole of the last century.
Temperatures will rise four times faster than in the last four decades (1971-2010), when the average rise was 1.4 degrees Celsius. Over the next 10 year they will increase by up to 1.5 degrees.
The Korea Meteorological Administration, which led the study in collaboration with eight governmental bodies including the Ministry of Environment, analyzed climate change in Korea based on climate change scenarios released by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year.
The report is released Tuesday but the Chosun Ilbo has seen an advance copy. It says Korea’s temperature rose 1.8 degrees on average over the last century, but the annual average temperature will be 13.8 degrees by 2020, up 1.5 degrees over the decade, and 15.5 degrees by 2050.
A government official said, “According to the IPCC’s earlier prediction, the temperature will increase 2 degrees Celsius on average by 2050. But the new report predicts an increase of 3.2 degrees, up 60 percent from the IPCC’s. This means climate change is proceeding much faster than expected.” [Chosun Ilbo]
These latest Doomsday prediction are based off of the discredited IPCC report. The amount of errors in the IPCC report is just staggering. It makes you wonder how such a faulty report was ever published but you just have to look at the corruption within the IPCC to include its chairman who is one of the fools going around claiming global warming is causing earthquakes.
Oh by the way here is the latest on ClimateGate 2.0 with more e-mails showing coordinated attempts to silence critics of global warming as well as coordinated attempts to explain away the lack of warming the past decade since all their predictions were wrong.
Anyway back to Korea, what is interesting about the alarmism in the ROK is that the Korean right is pushing it because they see it as a growth industry for Korean battery manufacturers that many consider the best in the world. The Korean business conglomerates are also making a big push into exporting wind turbines that the Korean President Lee Myung-bak has been active in promoting as well. Notice how there is no push in Korea to have a carbon exchange like many of the left in western nations want. This is probably because this is something the Korean business conglomerates look at as a profit killer.
2:38 pm on December 2nd, 2011 1
This is GREAT news!
Longer growing seasons will benefit Korea’s economy and food independence.
Less need for heating will reduce energy imports and lower pollution emissions.
I look foreward to a glorious warmer future where mankind can thrive!
6:45 am on December 4th, 2011 2
As I already wrote in another comment section, 2011 is the warmest year on record since they’ve been keeping meteorological records. It’s a fact.
7:12 am on December 4th, 2011 3
“2011 is the warmest year on record since they’ve been keeping meteorological records. It’s a fact.”
And just how long, in the history of this world, have these records been kept? Or are you one of those that beleive that dinosaurs never existed and that the Earth is only 5,000-6,000 years old?
BTW, it’s also a fact that vast portions of land on the planet used to be underwater (my home in central Texas is one of them) back when the planet was really warm and dinosaurs ruled.
7:22 am on December 4th, 2011 4
It’s amazing that these scientists that are so alarmed over global warming have never gone back and extrapolated just how hot the planet used to be or why we somehow survived global cooling, SARS, the bird flu, Y2K, swine flu, and countless other doom and gloom predictions.
But fear mongering sells, and “That’s a Fact!” Right, td?
7:43 am on December 4th, 2011 5
@2 – According to the link you left in the other thread the UN is claiming that 2011 is the 10th warmest year since 1850 no the hottest. Plus this information is coming from the UN so that makes it instantly suspect considering the discredited IPCC report and the fact the UN is in the middle of trying to legitimize global wealth redistribution:
So what weather station data did the UN warmists use to get this result? Did they cherry pick land surface stations that would ensure they could get a Doomsday result in time for their climate conference?
Regardless of the misinformation being put out there by the alarmists in their hopes of global wealth redistribution, the fact of the matter is that skeptics do believe that the Earth is warming. I have said this over and over again but the debate isn’t about whether global warming is real, it is real, how much and what is causing it that is the question? This is the same tired typical response to claim skeptics don’t think the globe is warming when all the skeptics like McIntyre, Spencer, and others have openly been saying for years the globe has been warming though not as much as the AGW clergy claims and not in recent years despite record amounts of CO2 in the air. They want real science done to determine the cause not the dishonest science we are seeing now.
All skeptics ask is that the research be open and debate be allowed in order to draw firm conclusions before forcing the public to drop their standard of living, give up their vehicles, and hand over billions of dollars to Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of people set to profit from the carbon exchange. Instead we have deceptive science and people who challenge these deceptions called every horrible name in the book while the global warming clergy see the profits continue to roll in as they fly around in private jets and live in huge mansions and then have the nerve to claim that they have some kind of moral superiority over everyone else
8:42 am on December 4th, 2011 6
#3,
Smartass.
#5,
Whooo, it’s just the 10th warmest… Oh, well that disproves global warming then.
Skeptics? Dude, you’re no more a skeptic than the Catholic Church was when it put Galileo on trial for having written “Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems”, in which he restated his support of Copernican heliocentrism.
9:06 am on December 4th, 2011 7
Good example, Teadrinker!
The Catholic Church insisted the “consensus” was that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Anyone who rejected this “fact”, based on secretive and unclear procedures, and complex thinking not understandable to the masses, was labeled a skeptic… er… heretic.
Heretics were ostracized and persecuted by the religious community which maintained their position and income by insuring nobody could question the official position… no matter how reasonable their questions or speculations… and regardless of evidence.
A great deal of time and effort went into dreaming up rationalizations to shoehorn the Real World into the confines of religious doctrine… followed by the demand that everyone believe it… or else the consequences for mankind would be terrible… and they would all end up in a hot place.
I can keep going! The similarities go on and on and on!
Wow, Teadrinker, you have really come around to some reasonable thinking by pointing this out.
As patterns repeat, they say a student of the past can better understand the future… and it is obvious that you do.
I can see your education paid off.
12:09 pm on December 4th, 2011 8
Um, well, for the bird flu we culled millions of possibly infected birds. With SARS we had quarantine lockdowns and dramatically reduced travel. With Y2K we had a bunch of computer programmers go line by line to fix the problem before it occurred. And with swine flu we used quarantines and other lockdown methods to slow and lessen the spread, though we still don’t know if the intended goal of preventing this new strain from mutating into something more deadly was reached.
As for global cooling, a lot of otherwise healthy people at the time didn’t survive. And if you want to look at a viral outbreak where today’s regimen and tools of public health weren’t readily available, how about the Spanish flu. I guess you’d say we survived that, too.
As for the “longer growing season” argument, since everyone here purportedly believes that the planet is warming up, but just cannot agree whether human inputs of CO2, CH4, etc., are a major contributor, maybe we should look at the benefits of this warmer growing season.
While some places might warm up and be able to grow things, other places may get too warm. Isn’t John from Taejŏn’s state of Texas in a prolonged drought that is threatening the cattle and agricultural sectors?
As for places like Korea, a warmer growing season could help in some ways, but whipped up cyclones and monsoons could easily wipe out many of those gains (as they already do).
1:57 pm on December 4th, 2011 9
Kushibo,
Yet another problem of the Global Warming Alarmist is that they somehow think that RIGHT NOW, we just happen to live in the absolute perfect global climate and that a slight rise in temperature is going to be the end of civilization.
As evidenced by new and abandoned cities over the last hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of years, as the climate changes, some places get warmer, cooler, wetter, dryer… etc. Some places may have more storms and some may have fewer…
…but it is almost assured a rise in global temperature, even beyond the most exaggerated claims, will be a net gain for life on the planet… just as it has in the past.
I might add, the “models” keep saying there will be unbelievable record hurricanes, cyclones, and monsoons in each year’s new “record warm year”…
…but there aren’t.
…so stop trying to push the same tired, “We know what is going to happen and it will be bad” bullshyt.
In Global Warming Alarmism, there is always a VERY speculative “but… but… but…” to any positive outlook which is promoted as fact.
I think the best quote to describe Global Warming Alarmism is…
“The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
- Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate 1973
And one last thing…
You know what the really, Really, REALLY satisfying part of Global Warming Alarmism is?
Global Warming Alarmism is going to go far, far away and be forgotten… because, in the end, food on the table and money in the pocket for an angry population is going to put a violent stop to a lot of needless bullshyt in the next couple of decades…
…and there will come a time when someone promoting personal sacrifice, to transfer wealth to the top one percent who openly makes no sacrifice, will see the REAL consensus…
…the consensus that they need a smack upside the head to stop the crazytalk.
2:08 pm on December 4th, 2011 10
You make a lot of assumptions there, CH. I, for one, do not believe we right now live in the absolute perfect global climate, nor that a slight rise in temperature is going to be the end of civilization.
But I do believe that the climate we now have is the climate we have prepared for.
And I do believe that a slight rise in temperature — which even the global warming skeptics now say is happening but is just not manmade — could decimate meat and agriculture industries in a lot of places like Texas.
Maybe the red-staters there will wake up soon to the realization that free-market, small-government solutions will not bring about, say, cheap water desalinization which would save their industries, so that we can beat China on that.
And I’m also not so sure we’re not seeing unusually high cyclones when we ran through the entire Roman alphabet and had to get into the Greek letters not too long ago.
3:30 pm on December 4th, 2011 11
Painful.
“And I’m also not so sure we’re not seeing unusually high cyclones when we ran through the entire Roman alphabet and had to get into the Greek letters not too long ago.”
You mean not too long ago in 1933, right? Or was it 1887?
…back before satellite technology allowed for the recognition and naming of storms which didn’t last long or approach population centers.
Before repeating yet another tired Global Warming Alarmist talking point about how weather is proof of climate, frequently based on complete current data and incomplete past data, consider this… from a group that REALLY wants to believe in Global Warming…
“Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI (IWTC-VI) Participants :
1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.”
…and more. Google it.
“But I do believe that the climate we now have is the climate we have prepared for.”
As has everybody throughout history. Global Warming Alarmists have such a narrow view of history. Mankind can make huge changes in a single decade and keep on truckin’. And entire populations have done just this in many cases.
A great example would be the devastation in Europe during WWII. It was immediate and had very little preparation… yet within a few decades all was well.
Now imagine you have 100 years to deal with a slow rise in sea level of a foot or two.
I see no reason for alarm… and certainly not enough to transfer my wealth to someone really, really wealthy or those who manage the hopelessly poor.
“cheap water desalinization”
This is a perfect example where government SHOULD get involved in a constructive way.
The Free Market is the answer to most things… but not all things. Government needs to work for the country when it recognizes a function that is not profitable in the market but gives a huge return on investment to the entire population… which, oddly, makes it a different type of free market with the payoff not being in money but in living standards, national productivity, international standing… etc… the capital of governments.
Water policy fits into this category… along with energy, healthcare, emergency services, national defense, law enforcement, space exploration, etc.
Kushibo… back to global warming… honestly, why all the alarm over something that MAY happen in a generation? Especially when we both know there are some serious immediate problems, from growing antibiotic resistance to the massive volume of plastic slowly breaking apart in the environment to the growing demand for energy and water, that really do need the same volume of attention and resources devoted to solving before it has a really serious affect on the condition of mankind.
12:36 am on December 7th, 2011 12
@11,
Thanks you reminded me of the quote from the Messiah Phil Christ (Phil Jones before he was anointed).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
The mental and verbal gymnastics this guy does to prevent tripping over his own words is pretty impressive.
Q:
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Q:
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
A:
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
So … +0.12C ~might~ be statistically significant if you stretch the meaning, BUT!!! -0.12C is most definitely not statistically significant. And it’s outside his expertise to determine if natural factors have influenced climate but he’s 100% certain that humans are responsible.
He pretty much defy’s logic and objective reasoning. And this is the guy responsible for that IPCC report that told the world we’re all gonna die unless we give our money to the UN and it’s pet projects.
1:01 am on December 7th, 2011 13
Ahh found the gold nugget.
If your statistics aren’t giving you significant results, look no farther. The patented Sample Size Extender
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4687
Statician presents a satire on how you can make any data set appear significant by simply taking more measurements of the same data and adding those until it means something.
Paper on how flexibility in data collection methods allows the collectors to prove anything they want.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1850704
These are the reasons you should ALWAYS be skeptical about anyone asking for money and using what seems to be simple statistics to justify it. Math is concrete, but statistics can be made to say anything with enough tweaking and manipulation. That was the whole reason Mann and Phil wouldn’t let people near the raw data sets and models used for the IPCC report, then later “lost” them. An analysis could prove what many were suspecting, that tricks had been used to inflate the results and great the fireball earth scenario.
As a statistician friend of mine said, its not about what the numbers say but what you want them to say.
3:34 am on December 7th, 2011 14
someotherguy wrote:
I think you’re misunderstanding that. +0.12°C is just barely outside the level of accepting it as significant if you use a 95% confidence interval, but if you use, say, a 90% confidence interval, it would be accepted as significant change.
The “stretching” part is that if you look at +0.12°C per decade not just as one decade but over many decades (the BBC article shows per decade increases of +0.15°C or more per decade for periods totaling 111 years, where the higher sample makes 95%-level statistical significance more likely.
By contrast, the seven-year period that has seen a per-decade decrease of 0.12°C is too short to get significance.
So the per-decade increase of 0.12°C and decrease of 0.12°C are not same-same. One is (it appears) a 111-year data trend, large enough to demonstrate a statistically significant change, while the other is a 7-year data trend, not large enough to demonstrate a statistically significant change.
If the downward trend in temperature continues for at least a decade or more (great!) then that might be statistically significant.
9:29 pm on December 13th, 2011 15
Igor Semiletov says fountains of methane are bubbling to the surface. Steve Connor reports at Independent.
11:16 pm on December 18th, 2011 16
Virginia residents oppose preparations for climate-related sea-level rise. Darryl Fears reports at WashingtonPost.
Congratulations, climate-change deniers! Y’all are winning.