Global Warming

[Henry Hawk]

From Scientific American:

"(Judith Curry) still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic."

She also realizes that the IPCC is full of shit.  I like to read Curry, she makes a lot of sense.  Her approach is a realistic approach to fixing the problem.

[Bo D]

He may or may not technically have lied but I still don't think he understands the difference between year-to-year differences and the undeniable and consistent downward trend over the past 30 years.

He cherry-picked the data to present only that part that he agrees with. That is lying.

[Henry Hawk]

He cherry-picked the data to present only that part that he agrees with. That is lying.

I'm not cherry picking anything....just stating a fact that the arctic ice is NOT melting as it was, but rather growing.

[Bo D]

He may or may not technically have lied but I still don't think he understands the difference between year-to-year differences and the undeniable and consistent downward trend over the past 30 years.

It's worse than you think. Or maybe not ....

[Exterminator]

She also realizes that the IPCC is full of shit.

No, not full of shit, full of themselves.  She doesn't think they're doing a good job engaging their skeptics which allows people like you to deny there is any merit to their science.  The science, she says, is sound.

I like to read Curry, she makes a lot of sense.  Her approach is a realistic approach to fixing the problem.

This is an interesting statement from someone who has been posting all day denying that a problem exists.

[Locutus]

I'm not cherry picking anything....just stating a fact that the arctic ice is NOT melting as it was, but rather growing.

Spline. 

Look it up. 

[Henry Hawk]

No, not full of shit, full of themselves.  She doesn't think they're doing a good job engaging their skeptics which allows people like you to deny there is any merit to their science.  The science, she says, is sound.

This is an interesting statement from someone who has been posting all day denying that a problem exists.

I HAVE NEVER denied that the climate is changing.  I am not convinced that it IS changing JUST BECAUSE of humans. Or that we can realistically make a difference.  I do believe that all of the carbon credits and some of the EPA laws do more harm to our economy thant it does to our ecology.
I think there is WAY too much politics involved and there IS political motive to convince people that the end is near if they don't comply.

[Henry Hawk]

Spline. 

Look it up. 

Help me out here.  Not getting your point.

[Henry Hawk]

The science, she says, is sound.

she says human activities are contributing to global warming, but she bridles at the IPCC consensus that humans are "largely responsible" — in other words, that more than 50 percent of global warming to date is caused by human activity.

"It might be around 50 percent or even a little less. I mean this is what we don't know" she says.

I have six nieces and nephews who have recently graduated from college," she says. "Not easy finding jobs in this economy. Are we going to jeopardize their economic future, and we don't know if they're going to care and if this is going to matter?"
Of course doing nothing to address climate change is actually doing a lot. Carbon dioxide levels are growing fast in the atmosphere and are destined to double or triple over pre-industrial levels. Curry acknowledges that.
"I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate," Curry says. "I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know."

[Palehorse]

http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=18831.0

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/europe/greenland-megacanyon/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

AHEM!

[Palehorse]

Flooding in the Boulder Co area has thus far left 400 dead and at least 500 unaccounted for; and it continues.

[Henry Hawk]

Climate Change Reconsidered II – A major new report on the state of the climate

"NIPCC's conclusion, drawn from its extensive review of the scientific evidence, is that the greenhouse gas-induced global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous."

What follows are excerpts of the key findings from the Executive Summary (you can read a more extensive list of findings from the executive summary here, about five pages).

• Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.

• Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred.

• A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis.

• Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

• Over recent geological time, Earth's temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability.

• Though a future warming of 2°C would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being.

• At the current level of ~400 ppm we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects.

• The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age modulated by natural multidecadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities.

• Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, which represents 34% of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

• CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere "greens" the planet and helps feed the growing human population.

• No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related CO2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO2 increase between about 1980 and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation.

• The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years.

• Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.

To review the links:

CCR-II Physical Science full report
Summary for Policy Makers
Extracted Executive Summary

[Locutus]

[Henry Hawk]

 

[Locutus]

Do you know who's behind that HH?