Ninety Degree Days In Virginia In Sharp Decline Over the past 80 years, the frequency of ninety degree days in Virginia through July 9 is down about 40%. Heidi Cullenâs Climate Central lies about this constantly. They apparently make money off generating irrational fear about the climate. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/ninety-degree-days-in-virginia-in-sharp-decline/
American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ânoâ http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/19/ipcc-climate-change-warming/
so we have at least 85 years to improve our research and technology without a problem. and that is the IPCC. fraudcurrents is going to blow a gasket. all those names he has called people and now even the IPCC says man made co2 is not dangerous for at least the next 85 years? heck, food, water, population, the middle east, terrorists, our border, fascists democrats, disease even Skynet are far more of a concerning.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6] Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7] The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8] The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
I thought, since jerm is batty, he might be interested in this... "Overheated flying foxes, panting and frantically fanning themselves with their wings, fell from the trees in New South Wales, Australia, six years ago. Up to 3,500 black and grey-headed flying foxes died on the ground beneath their roosts, victims, researchers believe, of heat waves that pushed temperatures to 108 degrees F (42º C). In this era of looming climate change, such scorching temperatures are occurring more often. Tragically so: since 1994, more than 30,000 flying foxes have died in New South Wales, apparently because of at least 19 episodes of extreme heat. Such sudden and massive mortality is an unusual result of global climate change, at least so far. Current and likely future impacts are being studied for many species of wildlife, from frogs to polar bears. As usual, research into the effects on bats lags behind, although nothing suggests bats will be spared the impacts of transformed environments." http://www.batcon.org/index.ph...mp;magArticleID=1014
we know climate changes. its not whether man could have some influence (we all agree it could) the questions are whether co2 has a significant impact... and if so what is it? New video a few days ago... top climate scientist who gets all his funding from NASA and govt... Dr. Roy Spencer here stating co2 might cause a some warming but showing that science has no proof of what is happening and what is causing it. <iframe width="480" height="308" src="http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/49789102?v=3&wmode=direct" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: 0px none transparent;"> </iframe> <br /><a href="http://www.ustream.tv" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; font-weight: normal; text-align: left;" target="_blank">Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream</a>
The IPCC commissioned four different models of what might happen to the world economy, society and technology in the 21st century and what each would mean for the climate, given a certain assumption about the atmosphereâs âsensitivityâ to carbon dioxide. Three of the models show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer. Now two degrees is the threshold at which warming starts to turn dangerous, according to the scientific consensus. That is to say, in three of the four scenarios considered by the IPCC, by the time my childrenâs children are elderly, the earth will still not have experienced any harmful warming, let alone catastrophe. for more... http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/19/ipcc-climate-change-warming/