True to form, soon as you're cornered you start with abuse and name calling. Like I said, the day you can carry a coherent argument will be the first.
Like The Weather Channel says: It is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be. More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/ and every science organization in the world and anyone with a lick of common sense
to to form you are the asshole who starts with the insults and then fairies out... are you some sort of community organizer. if you don't want to be insulted don't make comments containing insults.
try reading some science. the models are failing. co2 is going up temperature is not warming 06-26-13 12:08 PM SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures havenât risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this? Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. Weâre facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasnât happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) â a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that weâre observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations â and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldnât mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes. http://euvoice.eu/2013/06/climate-e...ing-stagnating/
It's unfortunate this business has gotten all twisted up with politics. We know precisely how it happened: Democrat Gore, who had a fascination with science, had his interest piqued when many years ago (1980's) Hanson let slip -- it was a highly visible forum-- that he thought man made climate change was possible, etc. Then, as the meteorologists and physicists began lining up, we got more data, and even more conjecture. Sure enough, temperature correlated with Anthro. CO2. [It is curious to note that there doesn't seem to be any documentation of a simple, but now obvious question being asked at this point, viz. "Is the temperature going up because we are we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or is the CO2 going up because the temperature is going up?" If anyone did ask, I would guess it would have been Lindzen, who never really bought into Hanson's hypothesis from the get-go. Frankly, it didn't seem important to ask that question, because at the time it was just assumed that the rise in CO2 was due to fossil fuel use, since the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 was about what we estimated we were dumping into the air. Very few considered that the amount of CO2 dumped into the air by Mother Nature might be a couple of orders greater than what we humans were dumping, thus making our contribution almost negligible, and maybe it was just a coincidence that the rise in CO2 was more or less matching what came from fossil fuels after allowing for massive natural sinking of CO2 as well. In the beginning we did a very poor job of allowing for both natural sourcing and sinking. We were, as humans, very anthropomorphic centered! Then too, we didn't have a good quantitative handle on the relative contributions to surface temperature of water, CO2, oceans and Sun. We way underestimated waters contribution relative to CO2 -- we also underestimated Cow flatulence. Regardless, before we could begin to nail any of this essential data down, before we had the satellites in place to help us collect the data we needed, the media picked up the story and we were off to the races. Then new models appeared and got tweaked to agree with the more recent data which was extrapolated to predict rather dire consequences -- coastlines inundated, polar bears with heat stroke; Moosejaw would be paradise and Guayaquil uninhabitable. Then came the C-13 data, the smoking gun. Many of the holdouts, but certainly not everyone, not already on the bandwagon couldn't wait to jump aboard. Peer pressure is a powerful force. No one likes to hear, "I told you so!" The coal and oil companies, however, were decidedly unhappy. Not only were they not aboard, they went out of their way to identify, support, goad, and exploit the dwindling number of naysayers, some of them quite prominent, indeed, in the meteorologist and atmospheric physics communities. And that's how we got to lefties and righties -- though this issue does not belong in either the media nor the political ring. Why? Because we are not done with the science. Modeling the atmosphere, and doing it well, is a very, very difficult task. Consequently no one has done it well yet, at least if they have we couldn't tell. We won't know until we can go forward in time. Anyone, allowed enough parameters, can model the known past, but what's important is modeling the future, and unlike the stock market, future climate can in principle be modeled, though we can't know the values of the dependent variables until we know the future value of the independent variables. And first we had better figure out what these variables are! Furthermore we are just now getting a good handle on the relative amounts of total sinking and sourcing for CO2, and we are finally beginning to amass enough satellite data and enough surface measurements to begin to get a handle on the overall picture. Now we know the Anthro CO2 is far from the only source of C-13 dilution in the atmosphere. There is orders of magnitude more dilution coming from natural sourcing of CO2. We hadn't recognized that in 2000. And now it seems the ice core data, upon which so much reliance was made, may have been incorrectly interpreted. Of course the gainsayers were always there, but the ones from the energy industry could not be trusted to be impartial, nor could their political supporters. Then you had the maverick meteorologists. They were mostly guessing based on what they considered to be common sense. Results from their own models were just as inadequate as those from the protagonists. Though common sense is welcome most everywhere, it holds no cache in the world of science, where only falsifiable and testable hypotheses get attention. The bottom line is that it was far, far too early for bandwagon-ing! With the media, not known for understatement, and Democrat Al Gore on one side, and the Energy Industry and their paid Republican sycophants on the other, we had the ingredients for the perfect political storm. When Gore and the democrats were able to garner the approbation of the Swedish Academy, and wide grins from the Goldman Sachs boardroom, as huge profits from carbon credits trading was being savored, the bandwagon began to roll right over the naysayers. Bump, bump, bump, it went. Ouch, ouch, ouch, cried the naysayers, but fewer and fewer were listening to their cries. Frankly it is all a big mess, and a perfect example of how not to do science. We all just need to take a deep breath, pretend none of this has happened, and wait for those who know something about the atmosphere and climate to figure it out -- the other scientists should button their lips. In the meantime, there is no data to suggest we need to be in a hurry to figure out whether anthropomorphic CO2 is a threat to our planet, and if so, what best to do about it. We are currently in a period of essentially constant integrated global temperature, though CO2 is still rising. If we can possibly restrain ourselves we should avoid using the language of politics to discuss global warming. The Earth can't tell the difference between Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Independent or Libertarian CO2. It is all the same to Mother Earth.
I think you underestimate the malice and fraud of the left. they know their models suck. they knew we are inside natural variability. they knew that the sun and the tides impact temperature... many on the left intended to push this fraud as long as the temperature would allow or they were hoping their guess would turn out to be a lucky one. everyone with a brain must know they science is lacking.
I disagree. People such as yourself have tried to turn this issue into a political football and succeeded. You have not done science any favor. Had the media and politicians been left out of this issue, it would have sorted itself out far sooner at much lower cost. As it is, its going to take much longer for the correct science to hold sway. Politicizing a disagreement among scientists will delay the correct resolution. Frankly, the vested interests have once again made a mess of things by introducing politics where it does not belong. The vested interests weighed in on the wrong side of the issue of smoking and lung cancer; the wrong side of the issue of freons and the Ozone layer; the wrong side of the issue of the economics of ethanol from corn. This time they may get lucky and their bias may put them on the correct side of the anthro. CO2 issue. They will probably end up one for four. They have contributed nothing of value to the resolution of science controversy; on the contrary, in each of these issues, their interference and attempts to politicize have delayed the proper resolution at great cost.
Right on, jem. Soon I don't think we will be hearing anymore from the AGW alarmists. They are enjoying their last gasp this summer. Although anything can happen over one year, the odds are stacked against their nonsense.
Obamaâs attempt to âstop global warming and climate changeâ by reducing carbon dioxide or closing coal power plants will only create an American-style âheat or eatâ crisis like that which forced millions into fuel poverty in the UK and Europe. Global temperatures have been declining since 2001 as solar magnetic activity falls; these natural climate factors are not part of the IPCCâs computer models which have lead governments to implement unnecessary climate policies that sent EU electrical prices up 37% over that of the US since 2005. European leaders were shocked this spring in Brussels to see that since 2005, electricity prices had skyrocketed some 37% over that of the US. That led to the G8 dropping climate change from the agenda. Many EU states have cancelled subsidies to renewables or begun to tax them. Germany is building dozens of coal plants, after finding out renewables cannot supply their needs reliably or cost-efficiently. This dramatic change is mostly due to the burden of âlow-carbonâ climate change policies that have driven industry offshore, crippled taxpayers, and turned voters against governments. Worse, 4,500 expensive wind turbines failed to supply any more than 0.3% power one day in winter when Britain needed it most. âAmerica must learn from Europeâs grim experiment with climate change policies,â says Len Maier, President of Friends of Science. âItâs clear that IPCC predictions are wrong and climate policies based on them destroy the publicâs faith in science and their pocketbooks.â This winter and spring, snow storms blanketed the US and Europe in unexpected fury. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists previously claimed that global warming would make snowfall "a very rare and exciting event". âA Little Ice Age is predicted based on solar patterns. It could be the equivalent of a nuclear winter,â says Len Maier, president of Friends of Science and a farmer himself. âAt such a time, an abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) would be a benefit. CO2 helps crops grow.â During the time from about 1350-1850 a âLittle Ice Ageâ was experienced and is best documented in Europe. This coincided with a period of very low sunspot activity, frigid temperatures and crop failures. NASA reports that such solar patterns are repeating themselves right now as the sunâs cycle 24 âmaximumâ peaks. Meanwhile, climate models, the bedrock rationale for climate policies issued by the IPCC overestimated the warming trends in the tropical atmosphere since 1979 by a factor four. Climatologist Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama in Huntsville calls this an "epic failure for the models". Friends of Science director Ken Gregory says, "The climate models attribute greenhouse gases as the cause of previous global warming trends when in fact climate is driven by ocean oscillations and cycles of solar magnetic flux. However, the IPCCâs mandate is only to consider human causes of climate change.â The scientific evidence shows CO2 is not the main driver of temperature â thereâs been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2. The most recent leaked draft of the IPCCâs upcoming report admits there has been no global warming in 15+ years as does the UK Met weather office. Model projections of temperature and snowfall were ridiculously wrong. According to Maier, governments are not prepared for the food crisis that would result from global cooling â a 1 or 2 degree drop in temperature. âMillions of acres of arable land would cease production,â says Maier. âGovernments want to close coal plants to satisfy a handful of vocal global warming believers. The evidence in Europe shows this is a mistake. Spending trillions of family tax dollars trying to suck carbon dioxide from the air, is a waste when people need reliable, cost-efficient conventional power and heat,â says Ken Gregory. âWind and solar power projects are virtually useless in cold spells.â The impact of the solar magnetic flux on earthâs climate has been documented by hundreds of technical papers. The total solar magnetic flux impact on climate is about seven times greater than what is expected from solar heat changes alone. History provides substantial human records of what happens to earthâs climate when the sunspot activity goes into a lull. âThe original âglobal warmingâ scare caught on because of an unusual El Nino hot weather phenomenon in 1998 and the attendant hype of Al Goreâs movie,â says Gregory. âYet there is clear evidence that temperatures are slowly declining, as is solar activity.â About Friends of Science Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists. Membership is open to the public. Contact: Friends of Science P.O.Box 23167, Connaught P.O. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1
"Friends of Science" ? Open to the Public??? is it like "Patriots for a Brighter Future" (Open to the public of course) "Americans for Mom and Apple Pie," (also, Open to the Public.) Follow the money, I say. Where do the "Friends of Science" get their money? That will tell you something.. Get a clue here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science pspr, do you have a fucking clue? Do you realize that Calgary is on the Western Edge of one of the worlds most significant oil producing regions? This is not Science this is guess work based on bias and hope. Why? Because "The Friends of Science" decided and concluded long before enough data and observations had been made to allow a reliable conclusion to be arrived at. Why not just vote on it? Let's decide this democratically. Is it the Sun, or is it anthro. CO2? (Open to the Public!!!) or is it heat from the Earths core conveyed by ocean currents? (We think that ultimately it's probably the Sun, but "ultimately" is not part of the question.) Any scientific conclusion should be left not to the "friends of science," or to the public, but to Science itself. You can vote on nature's laws all you you want. Be my guest. But don't expect Mother Nature to pay any heed to the results. Let's cut this political crap and concentrate on the Science. Truth is golden. And on this I am guaranteed to be correct, for in the end, the laws of nature will triumph over the laws of man. My point is that while it appears at present that you'll end up on the right side for the wrong reason, go with the science, not the politics. Politics is a risky bedfellow when your dealing with Mother Nature. M.N. does not care a fig for politics. Wouldn't you rather be on the right side for the right reason?