Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 — ‘Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record’
Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.
and this
Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.
and this
The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.
My opinion is that this was not a simple mistake. It was the direct result of politically motivated scientific organizations trying to find way to engineer world politics and economics in a socialist thrust. It was a deliberate LIE.
Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.
and this
The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.
Don't expect that this will end the debate. get ready for the "we're making a difference" campaign to keep the regulations and controls in place "to protect jobs and funding".
Everything they have been documenting are natural cycles based on events we have little to do with. The argument that Co2 causes temperatures to rise are easily disproved. The argument that human release co2 is bad because it's above and beyond the natural carbon cycle, flies in the face of forest fires and volcanoes which destroy co2 absorbing plants and trees. Burning fossil fuels do not. Unlike volcanoes and forest fires we do not incinerate plants and trees, instead we grow and plant them.
If Co2 is heated up "as they claim" it would defy thermaldynamic equilibrium. which means it's density would be reduced so much that it's buoyancy would allow the more dense molecules surrounding it to displace it. The way they describe how co2 reacts to Infrared radiation, it could only find equilibrium in the thermosphere. since it is concentrated in the troposphere and in cooler areas. I think co2 reacts to temperature and not the other way around. since we are not generating the excess heat, the only likely source is the one given by AGW community for warming the earth is the sun.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-16-2013).]
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 — ‘Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record’
Earth gaining a "record amount" of sea ice from historically low levels in 2012 doesn't mean much. The sea ice is still below normal (and besides - sea ice, in general, isn't a good indication of climate change as discussed previously).
Who cares what Al Gore says. He does a disservice to climate science with his bullsh*t.
Originally posted by jmclemore: The argument that human release co2 is bad because it's above and beyond the natural carbon cycle, flies in the face of forest fires and volcanoes which destroy co2 absorbing plants and trees. Burning fossil fuels do not. Unlike volcanoes and forest fires we do not incinerate plants and trees, instead we grow and plant them.
As shown many times over, human CO2 emissions far outstrip CO2 emissions from burning forests and erupting volcanoes. Forest fires are particularly irrelevent since burnt forests quickly re-grow - All carbon released during burning is captured when the trees grow back. No net CO2 emissions.
"- Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year."-Discovery
Climate agency accused of cooling on global warming as new report lowers predicted temperature increase
As it prepares to present its first report in six years to the world’s governments, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has lowered the range of predicted global warming by half a degree celsius, leading to accusations of a climb-down from earlier, more dire forecasts.
The subtle drop, which suggests a doubling of atmospheric carbon would increase mean global temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees celsius, rather than the earlier range of between 2 and 4.5 degrees, is included in a confidential summary for policymakers obtained by the National Post.
There is a broad agreement among countries, derived largely from the IPCC, that warming must be kept lower than 2 degrees in order to avert the most serious consequences. This latest range is the first to suggest that threshold might not be crossed. The adjusted prediction follows a more drastic backtracking by the British Met Office, which this year lowered by 20% its previous prediction of how much hotter the coming few years will be than the long-term average since 1971. Both reflect efforts by climate scientists to reconcile the predictions of computer models with the observed so-called “pause” in global warming, which apparently stalled in 1998 and has yet to resume. This unexplained trend has been a headache for policymakers, many of whom came to the climate file during the era of clear-eyed alarmism driven largely by Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.
With a major global meeting next week in Stockholm, at which the IPCC’s final report is to be released and questions debated by government negotiators, and with other geoplitical issues crowding climate off the agenda, this minor adjustment could cause big problems.
Matt Ridley, a scientist and journalist who is also a member of the British House of Lords, wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay on the weekend that the IPCC “dials back the alarm” with a “clear” downward adjustment of its predictions.
“Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is,” he wrote. “It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.”
Some scientists, however, see the new report as a validation and slight refinement of the previous one, from 2007.
Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist who co-authored the relevant chapter of the IPCC’s full report, said this is a misinterpretation, “an incorrect, qualitative interpretation of what the science is saying.”
He said the chapter he co-wrote states: “Despite considerable advances in climate models and in understanding and quantifying climate feedbacks, the assessed literature still supports the conclusion from [the previous IPCC report] that climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C.”
“What we’ve learned since 2007 is not a lot of new stuff. It’s basically underscoring with greater certainty what we’ve already said,” said Prof. Weaver, a British Columbia Green Party MLA on political leave from the University of Victoria. “To capture it in a sound bite, it’s essentially more of the same, with a little more certainty…. Scientists have done their job. Now it’s time for policymakers and politicians to do theirs if we as a society want to deal with this problem. Here we are, in 2013, with another massive report. It’s just saying the same thing.”
It is true that little has changed since the previous report, and the grandest conclusions remain worrying. Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850, it states, and the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest. 1983-2012 is said to be “very likely” the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years, and “likely” the warmest in 1400 years.
Others disagree that this represents progress toward accuracy. Unable to explain its failure to predict the current “pause” in warming, the IPCC “appears determined to double down and claim even more confidence than ever in their models,” said Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist who was instrumental in criticizing and eventually undermining the famous “hockey stick” graph of rising global temperatures.
“It’s possible the government negotiations will move them towards a more credible statement, but the problem is the negotiators at this point are from national environment ministries who all have a vested interest in promoting the climate scare,” Prof. McKitrick said. “So I don’t hold out any hope that a realistic document will emerge from Stockholm.”
The draft summary document, dated in June and marked “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute,” is based on “new evidence of past and projected future climate change based on many independent scientific analyses ranging from observations of the climate system, paleoclimate archives, theoretical studies of climate processes and simulations using climate models.”
It lists two Canadians among the authors, Environment Canada scientists Nathan Gillett and Gregory Flato.
Mr. Gillett declined to comment without approval from Environment Canada, which did not reply to a request to interview either scientist by press time Sunday.
Bruce Pardy, an expert on environmental law and governance at Queen’s University, said the IPCC “has run into difficulty again. That is not surprising, since the IPCC claims to be a scientific body that in reality is an intensely political organization.”
He said their mandate to offer policymakers a consensus view from scientists was “asking for trouble” all along, because science is not done by consensus, “but requires independence, disagreement and debate. Climate science is notoriously uncertain…. Moreover, the IPCC appears to believe that it has a role in developing or influencing policy, which is not a scientific matter. Policy depends on values. Values are not scientific. When scientists take positions on policy, they forfeit their claim of being objective observers. Instead, they reflect their own preferences, and can no longer be relied upon as neutral sources of facts.”
Gordon McBean, a leading Canadian climatologist at Western University and president-elect of the International Council for Science, criticized a report on the adjustment in the British Mail on Sunday newspaper for “comparing two different time periods.”
“Yes, the rate of warming over the past decade to fifteen years has decreased,” he said, but if you adjust for the effects of El Nino (the southern hemisphere oscillation), the trend is more or less what the previous IPCC report predicted.
“It is unfortunate that certain media will misquote or emphasize certain issues in order to convey their pre-conceived message,” he said. “In Canada, the Harper Government clearly has no intention of really doing anything on greenhouse gas emissions so they will use these stories to justify their inaction.”
Chris Fletcher, an expert on climate modelling and analysis at the University of Waterloo, said “the real focus should be on the fact that the models continue to predict a ‘likely’ global warming over the coming century in the range 1-2.5 C, with more to come in future centuries. That is a very significant climate change in a [geologically] short period of time, and it is directly attributable to human activity. That alone is a big story.”
As shown many times over, human CO2 emissions far outstrip CO2 emissions from burning forests and erupting volcanoes. Forest fires are particularly irrelevent since burnt forests quickly re-grow - All carbon released during burning is captured when the trees grow back. No net CO2 emissions.
"- Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year."-Discovery
Your argument is that 1st Co2 emissions are a problem. "I do not agree" "Unless you can explain how IR interacting with Co2 causes it to heat up - where does the heat come from?"
2nd that an excess of Co2 can only be produced by human events. "excess is excess no matter the source"
3rd that volcanoes and forest fires are irrelevant because it regrows "until then dead plants and trees absorb nothing , especially the excess Co2 it is releasing" also see : this link for the quote below"
quote
While forest fires can benefit the ecosystem, the massive fires of recent years have done major damage – damage that won't heal on its own.
(reused below for the same point)
4th humans contribute to the emission but not the absorption. "Humans maintain lawns that would become dirt in many areas"
quote
Statistics from the July 2012 IBIS World market report show that the green industry has annual revenues of $61 billion, employs 899,958 people and represents 416,991 businesses. According to the Global Industry Analysts Report "the landscaping services market in the US is expected to recover and poised to reach US $80.06 billion by 2015."
Lawn care, landscaping, and gardening part of that industry.
"Humans plant trees. see : this link for the quote below"
quote
While forest fires can benefit the ecosystem, the massive fires of recent years have done major damage – damage that won't heal on its own.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-16-2013).]
"- Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year."-Discovery
I think you have not read the latest reports. No one has PROVEN that CO2 causes global warming. Temperatures have leveled off for at least 15 YEARS! Are you still trying to suggest that rising CO2 levels are causing rising temperature levels?
In one of your previous posts, you already explained how greenhouse gases like CO2 have a warming effect.
Nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) comprise almost 99 percent of the atmosphere. These two-atom molecules are mostly transparent to IR (long wave radiation). If the atmosphere were 100 percent N2 and O2, IR radiating upwards from the earth's surface (which is a result of land masses and oceans having been warmed by shortwave radiation from the sun) would pass mostly unhindered upwards through the atmosphere, into outer space, effectively keeping the earth cool.
The greenhouse gases (including CO2) are more complex molecules with chemical bonds that absorb and reradiate energy at certain frequencies in the IR spectrum. The effect is to reduce the amount of solar energy that is radiated away from the earth into outer space at certain IR frequencies, which results in a net global warming.
So, yes, the carefully manicured lawns and gardens surrounding your house absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. But if you used chemical fertilizers instead of manure, the production of those fertilizers required energy that mostly came from fossil fuels, which caused a net increase of greenhouse gases. And when you watered your gardens and lawns, the water pressure was maintained by electrical pumps which were also energized mostly by fossil fuels. If you employed landscapers and gardeners, they arrived in vehicles that were energized, directly or indirectly, by fossil fuels, and they may well have used power gardening and landscaping tools that were also energized, directly or indirectly, by fossil fuels.
The math doesn't add up for you--you are not putting forward a convincing argument against MMGW.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-16-2013).]
It's a nice theory but it has not been PROVEN. Seriously, it has not. Not one study has proven CO2 is the one direct cause of the .7 degree rise in temps experienced many years ago. The models predicting catastrophic warming in the last 15 years are WRONG. Now CO2 levels are going up every year yet temperatures are not. Why is that? Because something else is happening which no one has figured out.
In one of your previous posts, you already explained how greenhouse gases like CO2 have a warming effect.
Nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) comprise almost 99 percent of the atmosphere. These two-atom molecules are mostly transparent to IR (long wave radiation). If the atmosphere were 100 percent N2 and O2, IR radiating upwards from the earth's surface (which is a result of land masses and oceans having been warmed by shortwave radiation from the sun) would pass mostly unhindered upwards through the atmosphere, into outer space, effectively keeping the earth cool.
The greenhouse gases (including CO2) are more complex molecules with chemical bonds that absorb and reradiate energy at certain frequencies in the IR spectrum. The effect is to reduce the amount of solar energy that is radiated away from the earth into outer space at certain IR frequencies, which results in a net global warming.
The math doesn't add up for you--you are not putting forward a convincing argument against MMGW.
The specific question is explain how IR produces heating of a Co2 molecule? since we are not talking about convection nor conduction, what is the chain reaction occurring for molecules (specifically Co2) to heat up....
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-16-2013).]
The IPCC itself is slowly and quietly backing away from their wild predictions... Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007. Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction. The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability. lThey recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.
Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault. It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap. Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.
She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.
Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.
Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'
Starting a week tomorrow, about 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus – will hold a four-day meeting in Stockholm, together with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, established in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The governments have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause.
Prof Curry said she hoped that the ‘inconsistencies will be pointed out’ at the meeting, adding: ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.’ Others agree that the unwieldy and expensive IPCC assessment process has now run its course.
Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future.’ Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’. As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers . . . to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.
The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version. The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change ‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium but one’.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is meant to warm each time CO2 levels double. As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’. Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels. As a result of the warming pause, several recent peer-reviewed scientific studies have suggested that the true figure for the sensitivity is much lower than anyone – the IPCC included – previously thought: probably less than 2C.
Last night IPCC communications chief Jonathan Lynn refused to comment, saying the leaked report was ‘still a work in progress’.
===========================================
MET OFFICE'S COMPUTER 'FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED' SAYS NEW ANALYSIS
The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher. Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in America. The Met Office model’s current value for the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) – how much hotter the world will get each time CO2 doubles – is 4.6C. This is above the IPCC’s own ‘likely’ range and the 95 per cent certainty’ level established by recent peer-reviewed research. Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought. Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate. He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world. This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy. Mr Lewis concludes that the Met Office modelling is ‘fundamentally unsatisfactory, because it effectively rules out from the start the possibility that both aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity are modest’. Yet this, he writes, ‘is the combination that recent observations support’. The Met Office said it would examine the paper and respond in due course.
I think you have not read the latest reports. No one has PROVEN that CO2 causes global warming. Temperatures have leveled off for at least 15 YEARS! Are you still trying to suggest that rising CO2 levels are causing rising temperature levels?
I have read the latest reports. CO2 causes global warming but is not the ONLY cause of climate change. There are multiple well known climate cycles that are on a 25-30 year span that could very easily cause warming to level off in the short term.
Now if the warming is still stalled in 25, 30 years, than I would tend to agree. But I think we'll see warming pick up at a rapid pace within the next few years. I hope I am wrong. I love the snow and I love V8 engines too.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 09-17-2013).]
It's a nice theory but it has not been PROVEN. Seriously, it has not.
Science is always evolving...we know very few things with absolute certainty. It will probably NEVER be fully "proven" one way or the other. But there is a mountain of evidence that ties CO2 to warming, and no plausible alternate scenario that would cause the long term warming trend we've had in the last 100 years.
Models are models, they are not perfect simulations, therefore they are often not completely accurate. As the IPCC is discovering, their models were too sensitive. BUT, we are still seeing warming, just not as much as predicted. The basic science is still sound.
It's a nice theory but it has not been PROVEN. Seriously, it has not. Not one study has proven CO2 is the one direct cause of the .7 degree rise in temps experienced many years ago. The models predicting catastrophic warming in the last 15 years are WRONG. Now CO2 levels are going up every year yet temperatures are not. Why is that? Because something else is happening which no one has figured out.
no the right has simple missed the dip in the sun spot cycle less heat from the sun = less temperature gain on earth
no the right has simple missed the dip in the sun spot cycle less heat from the sun = less temperature gain on earth
but no drop in temperatures
Maybe so but what has this got to do with CO2 causing global warming? If CO2 is the direct reason for global warming then temperatures should have increased with increases in CO2.
Actually the scientists and experts are still in agreement if you actually listened to them rather than the media, Gore and other celebrities.
Your David Suzuki piece looks to be nothing more than an angry blogger taking things out of context. I think Suzuki has helped open peoples eyes to the realities of Climate Change. He recently wrote;
quote
the attacks on legitimate climate science are coming from people whose arguments have been debunked many times and who often have ties to the fossil fuel industry. Some, including Roy Spencer and Ross McKitrick, have signed the Cornwall Declaration, which states: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
The declaration also states that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming” and that renewable energy should not be used to replace fossil fuels. Their world view can’t accept the reality of climate change or its solutions no matter how much evidence is provided – something that offends many people of faith who believe we have a responsibility to care for the Earth.
The IPCC report, on the other hand, is a review of all the available science on climate change, conducted by hundreds of experts from around the world. It confirms climate change is happening, burning fossil fuels is a major cause and it will get worse if we fail to act. It also examines what appears to be a slight slowing of global warming – but certainly not a halt, as deniers claim—and offers scientific explanations for it.
Maybe so but what has this got to do with CO2 causing global warming? If CO2 is the direct reason for global warming then temperatures should have increased with increases in CO2.
Seriously just wait, when they can not find an answer for the PAUSE They will claim their regulations, methods and model are working and if we stop now it will begin to increase again. We should quickly establish the the carbon tax system to prevent us from regressing backward.
If they can't find a motivation for going forward, they'll claim victory and rally for more Government oppression to hold the line.....
One year of less then mean does not a recovery make any more than one year of extreme low extent means that the end of yearly ice is upon us.
I watched the video but "The Sun" is far from mainstream. Again David Suzuki is more celebrity and media personality than scientist these days. He freely admitted he made a mistake on the first point and the rest is just an attack on him as a person, a particularly bad one I might add.
Oh and remember "The Sun" is the only channel that will tell you what you want to hear....oops I mean the truth. Love it!
Seriously just wait, when they can not find an answer for the PAUSE They will claim their regulations, methods and model are working and if we stop now it will begin to increase again. We should quickly establish the the carbon tax system to prevent us from regressing backward.
If they can't find a motivation for going forward, they'll claim victory and rally for more Government oppression to hold the line.....
I'll listen to the scientists and experts for any Climate Change knowledge not the deniers getting their excuses, scare mongering, misguided "told-ya-so's" in order.
Newf ALWAYS misses the point, while being blinded by his uncritical thinking and misguided belief in scientists who are cooking the numbers to keep up the flow of research dollars.
Newf ALWAYS misses the point, while being blinded by his uncritical thinking and misguided belief in scientists who are cooking the numbers to keep up the flow of research dollars.
Missed the point of a one year recovery? Ummm OK.
Hey keep up with the personal insults and conspiracy theories of those rich researchers and their mountains of false peer reviewed science.
Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.
and this
Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.
and this
The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.
My opinion is that this was not a simple mistake. It was the direct result of politically motivated scientific organizations trying to find way to engineer world politics and economics in a socialist thrust. It was a deliberate LIE.
1. Polar bear endangerment 2. island inundation 3. increased hurricane activity 4. exaggerated global average temperature increase, which is now apparently far less than predicted
1. Polar bear endangerment 2. island inundation 3. increased hurricane activity 4. exaggerated global average temperature increase, which is now apparently far less than predicted
Arn
Show us where you are getting these predictions from, site the papers please. Please don't say Al Gore again.
Facepalm all you want but you have shown nothing to prove CO2 causes Global Warming. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Simple as that. I await your link to the scientific study which shows the direct link. (Not Al Gore showing a graph)
I must admit the GW's don't waste any time. There is a real strong offensive on CNN today to pump up the hysteria. They are now citing a 1 ft rise in sea levels in the past century and forecasting up 6 ft rise. They are forecasting Miami being inundated and islands disappearing. Now 95% of scientists sure people are to blame. It's once again undeniable.
Episodic evidence from Miami that "every fall" the water rises due to heat fluctuations in the gulf, now from that fact extrapolating this to be global danger.
It never fails. Somebody rightly points out there has been no Global Warming for the past 17 years and the left wing press goes into overdrive. Go fig.......
Newf ALWAYS misses the point, while being blinded by his uncritical thinking and misguided belief in scientists who are cooking the numbers to keep up the flow of research dollars.
You REALLY think that the majority of climate scientists are cooking the numbers? That's a pretty strong assertion to make.
You REALLY think that the majority of climate scientists are cooking the numbers? That's a pretty strong assertion to make.
...not cooking the numbers, but making theories based on evidence that they are presenting and people calling it fact is what I have an issue with.
For example the IPCC says that people (deniers) are not looking at the big picture when people bring about the point that the temperature has remained flat for the last 15 years, they claim:
Now, why is it 30 years and not 1000 years (or more)? We know that the earth has gone through these warming and cooling cycles before and it takes a long time to reach these extreme temperatures, YET the IPCC is basing all their data over a "30 year" span. Could it be because it just fits their model ([cough]agenda[cough])?
I suspect it is that they have no ideal if this warming cycle/rate is normal or not as there are no detailed temperature records from 1000+ years ago - all they can say is that the last 30 years is different than the previous 30 years. However how different is the last 1000 years compared to the previous 1000 years, etc? Is the rate any different?
Also to add, with regards to the hypothesis is that heat is settling temporarily in the oceans, but it wasn't included in this summary. Stocker said there wasn't enough literature on "this emerging question." So despite those graphs that were posted in this thread and arguments made that the oceans are sucking up all the heat as to why the temp is flat, the IPCC is basically saying that they don't know if that is the case or not.
But yes of course we really should be cleaning up our act, but governments should just not be jumping into the water head first without at least checking how deep it is and stop wasting money on 'carbon credit' Ponzie schemes. And while we are at it, something also needs to be done about our 'garbage' as well. Why is it that people are so bent out of shape over CO2 yet will continue to throw out lots of waste or not force companies to reduce packaging?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 09-27-2013).]
Originally posted by Hudini: Facepalm all you want but you have shown nothing to prove CO2 causes Global Warming. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Simple as that. I await your link to the scientific study which shows the direct link. (Not Al Gore showing a graph)
Are you serious? Many times throughout Earth's history CO2 has warmed the planet. It's a known and undisputed scientific fact.
Love it!
