What are you going to do with yourself in 20 years when the world confronts a global cooling issue. In the meantime I will just watch our Democratic State Attorney General take legal action to stop Obama's regulations from being implemented.
So… case closed, right? It is greenhouse gases, and not solar activity, that are the main cause of climate changes this past century? Well, not so fast. Because when sunspot numbers rise and fall, there’s more going on than simply changes in solar brightness. Periods of reduced sunspot activity correspond to periods of reduced magnetic activity on the sun, and reduced outflows of charges particles from the sun (the so-called solar wind). The solar wind whizzes past the Earth and deflects cosmic rays from deep space from hitting our atmosphere. A recent proposal from Danish scientists suggest that when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere, they create tiny aerosol particles that lead to increased cloud formation and less sunlight hitting the Earth. So it’s a double whammy… fewer sunspots mean a dimmer sun, which also means more cosmic rays into the atmosphere and more cloud cover which further cools the Earth. And vice-versa when there is more solar activity. Another recent theory suggests increased UV light from the sun drives energy flow from the upper to lower atmosphere by disrupting a layer of ozone high in the atmosphere. How this affects climate is unclear. As it turns out (as far as we know), computer models of the climate do not take these indirect effects of solar activity into account when calculating the change in global climate. And while human activity counts for only 5% of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year, the sun accounts for ALL the energy striking the Earth and driving its dynamic and enormously complex ocean currents and atmosphere. - See more at: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1054/sunspots-global-warming/#sthash.3s71d815.dpuf
Wow, oneminuteastronomer dot com. Impressive. Yeah, no, the experts have looked at that and no. It is not due to cosmic rays. More likely due to crazed Libertarianism.
the world of fc? is this the guilty delusions of a greenhouse gas salesman? A world where science does not matter only propaganda.
Just lol at the above post... The rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as the warming seen during the last half of the 20th Century, according to new study published in Science this month by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The new study used the latest global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record. This study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown, hiatus, or Pause, in the rate of global warming in recent years. The Pause has been a rallying cry for those not wanting to accept climate change as real. Of course, conspiracy theorists claim that NOAA purposefully tampered with the data to make sure it showed a warming trend (The Week). Because that’s what scientists do. Right? The Pause was an idea from a 2013 UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that concluded the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998 to 2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951 to 2012. But Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, says, “Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century.” The Pause never made sense to me given the other warming data available over this time period: - the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost huge ice mass - glaciers continued to shrink worldwide - Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover continued to decrease in extent - ocean warming continued unabated Besides, the IPCC data in the 2013 report didn’t actually show much of a Pause anyway. The report actually concluded, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” This is not the report I would cite if I wanted to show global warming was a fantasy. On the other hand, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends since the release of the IPCC report, and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014, the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. A correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data is probably the most substantial improvement in the calculations. Before 1974, the primary method for measuring sea surface temperatures was by ship. But since then, buoys, with greater accuracy, have been used in increasing numbers. Data collected from buoys are always cooler than ship-based data, and we’ve developed methods for accurately comparing these two crucial data sets. The new analysis also demonstrated that incomplete spatial coverage led to underestimates of the true global temperature change previously reported in the 2013 IPCC report. The integration of dozens of data sets, including the International Surface Temperature Initiative databank, NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily dataset, and forty other historical data sources, has more than doubled the number of weather stations available for analysis, especially for the Arctic, where temperatures have been increasing the most. But the results from the full data set over the last century didn’t really change much with the new analysis. Before, it was 1.17°F/century. With this new analysis, it’s 1.22°F/century, not much different. The Pause was never much of a pause. Data like this is about trends, not absolutes. These improvements in data analyses will not sit well with many people. “We’re all climate change deniers at heart,” says Oliver Burkeman ofThe Guardian. That’s a problem for more things than the environment. As a species, we just don’t care as much about existential threats that are not immediately obvious. We are hard-wired to care about things that are immediately important, both good and bad. It’s why we keep doing stupid things, repeating history in bad ways, giving rise to the idea that we never seem to learn. Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman states it more dolefully in terms of climate change, “No amount of psychological awareness will overcome people’s reluctance to lower their standard of living.” This is why science and education are so important – they counter this tendency to ignore long-term threats. It’s why civilization evolved in the first place, to buffer the worst threats from the real world over longer time spans than just a few years. In the end, you don’t have to believe in climate change, or science at all, to want to reduce fossil fuel use, especially coal. The health effects and direct pollution effects from getting fossil fuel out of the ground, and burning it, are more than enough reason to decrease it’s use. And it doesn’t matter if this present upward temperature change is human induced or not. We need to understand it and we need to deal with it. Of course, it’s never black or white, and the warming effects appear to be a human-exacerbated natural trend. But if there is anything we can do to mitigate the effects, we need to know what that is. It will be interesting to see what the IPCC says in their next report about the NOAA study. Not that it will matter to those who want to selectively use their 2013 report to say - “Move along, nothing to see here.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/06/15/a-pause-in-global-warming-not-really/
FC always loves a clean atmosphere.... You know what helps - War. AGW Advocates and Greenies should be cheering on war. The surprising byproduct of conflict in the Middle East? Cleaner air http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...ct-of-conflict-in-the-Middle-East-Cleaner-air
President Obama will fly in a large jet spewing toxic CO2 for more than 14,000 miles over the next 11 days in a climate change tour that will take him from the desert West to the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Circle. Obama to speak 'frankly' on 11-day climate change tour http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-frankly-11-day-climate-change-tour/32265433/
Airplanes are one of the worst polluters in existance. I wish Boeing and Airbus worked on green airplanes...