Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Stop editing (Kurt). It makes you look even more desperate, if that were possible. Yeah, I know dude. The 50-something bachelor p*ssy slayer who travels with mommy.

 

1. no one said the paper expressed an opinion on causation.

2. I was not taking about DBphoenix I was talking the guy who made sick threats to me for virtually no reason.
As someone who claims to be the father of children you should grow up and stop making sick threats.
most people who have kids are not going to engage roid heads who make threats.

3. regarding kurt. he never met me, he doesn't know me. he has no idea of my private life.
I simply gave him a few grand to see if he could make some money trading bonds after he spoke with me on the phone a few minutes.

4. I generally edit until someone else posts. I make a lot of typos and sometimes I find them in time.

5. I am done typing here for now. (I am going to throw the baseball and then play golf with my kids.)
So yeah I am either living an internet lie... or you have no fricken clue about me.

 

Addled. I never made any retaliatory physical thread to DBPhoenix. PHOENIXTRADING, if you can possibly follow the link.

Oh, so the add about Kurt was a typo correction? I see.And now you edit-out the reference to DBPhoenix. Pathetic. Bag of cats.

 

Typical slimey lawyer. You just can't come out and say that you don't believe in global warming.....because you do. But you want to be able to defend the guilty to suit your crazed agenda.

Jem believes in man made global warming. Of that there is no doubt.

 

Don't believe a word this psychotic states here. He's a residential RE agent. All big-shot lawyers do short sales and listings.

 

LOL... I knew he was some kind of failed lawyer, but RE agent? Too funny. That explains a lot.

Psychotic is certainly the right word.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...pared-for-global-warming-impacts-un-says.html

Global warming is depleting fresh water and crops, destroying coral reefs and melting the Arctic, the United Nations said today in a report that concludes the world is ill-prepared to face many new threats.

Climate change has brought “key risks” that endanger lives and health worldwide, including storm surges and coastal flooding worsened by rising sea levels; infrastructure destruction and the disruption of power networks, communications and health services by extreme weather, and the depletion of crop production due to droughts and floods, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said.

“If you look around the world today, people, cities, businesses and nations aren’t prepared for the climate-related risk we face now,” Chris Field, the U.S. professor who co-chaired the 309 scientists drafting today’s report, said in a phone interview from Yokohama, Japan. “The climate changes that have already occurred have been widespread and have really had consequences. It’s not the case that climate change is a thing of the future.”

The report is designed to guide global lawmakers as they devise policies to reduce heat-trapping emissions and make their infrastructure, agriculture and people more resilient to a warmer world. It aims to influence climate treaty talks among 194 nations that are working to devise an agreement next year to rein in global warming.

Global Impact

“The IPCC is a bell tower,” Field said after the report’s release. “It is trying to allow the world to climb up to a high point so that it can see far and clearly into the future and to let people make smart decisions for their own purposes to use science to build a better world.”

The researchers documented how climate change affects everything from retreating glaciers in East Africa, the Alps, the Rockies and the Andes to the bleaching of corals in the Caribbean Sea and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Mussel-beds and migratory patterns for salmon are changing off the U.S. West Coast, grapes are maturing faster in Australasia and birds are flying to Europe earlier in the year.

“One message that comes out very clearly is that the world has to adapt and the world has to mitigate,” Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said today in Yokohama. “The sooner we do that, the less the chances of some of the worst impacts of climate change.”

Today’s 49-page study, dealing with “impacts, adaptation and vulnerability” of climate change is the second of three “Summaries for Policymakers” that the panel is preparing in its most comprehensive assessment of climate science, an exercise it last carried out in 2007.

‘Happening Now’

“Climate change is not some distant threat, it’s happening now and being felt everywhere,” Andrew Steer, president of the Washington-based World Resources Institute, said in a statement. “The warning signals went off long ago, and we are now suffering the consequences of our inaction.”

The evidence of impacts is strongest for natural systems, and there are early warning signs that damage to coral reefs and the retreat of the Arctic Sea ice may become “irreversible,” while a “large fraction” of land and freshwater species face a growing risk of extinction, they said. Some impacts on cities and societies are also attributable to climate change.

‘Under Threat’

“It is not just polar bears, coral reefs, and rainforests that are under threat: it is us,” Kaisa Kosonen, political adviser to the environmental group Greenpeace International, told reporters in Yokohama, where the report is being published today. The word “risk” appears more than 5,000 times in the wider underlying report that spans thousands of pages, she said.

“The choices we make now will affect the risks we face for the rest of the century,” the authors wrote, while warning that the uncertainty surrounding future vulnerability is large. The scientists “reformulated the challenge of managing climate change into a challenge of managing risks,” said Field, a professor of environmental earth science at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California.

One of the panel’s starkest findings concerns water availability and food production. Where seven years ago, researchers were less certain about the potential damage to staple crops, in today’s study, they said global wheat and maize production are already being negatively impacted by warmer temperatures, with yields of wheat declining by about 2 percent per decade and those of maize by 1 percent. Total soy and rice yields are largely unchanged.

Food Prices

Since 2007, “several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes,” the panel wrote. Fisheries in the tropics will suffer as species migrate towards the poles, they said. Under all warming scenarios, the global stock of fish is projected to decline by 2100.

“This shows climate change is not a distant future threat to food,” Tim Gore, a climate campaigner at the development charity Oxfam International told reporters in Yokohama. “It is a clear and present danger.”

Shrinking glaciers are affecting water resources, and rising greenhouse gas emissions will raise the fraction of the global population facing water scarcity this century, the researchers wrote. Changes in food and water availability “disproportionately” affect the welfare of the rural poor.

Wars

Projected changes could trigger the displacement of people, help instigate wars and threaten the physical integrity of low-lying countries because of the encroachment of rising seas, the researchers found.

Impacts on human health include injury, illness and death due to more intense heat waves, wildfires, increased under-nutrition due to lower availability, and food- and water-borne diseases.

While the poorest people in countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia are those most at risk from climate change, richer nations aren’t immune to its effects and also have to adapt, according to Field.

“Vulnerability is not just concentrated in poor pockets or coastal areas,” he said. “There’s vulnerability throughout the world: from the tropics to the poles and the deserts to the rainforests. You just have to look at something like the impacts of Hurricane Sandy on New York to see that even a very wealthy area can be vulnerable to an extreme weather event.

Unprepared

‘‘Vulnerability in rich countries is usually experienced as economic losses while in poor countries it’s often existential – you get huge amounts of deaths,” Field said. “It’s not like we’re prepared anywhere.”

Global economic losses stemming from further warming of about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) range from 0.2 percent of income to 2 percent, and losses are “more likely than not to be greater rather than smaller than this range,” the researchers wrote, citing “incomplete” estimates.

“The true cost of climate change cannot be represented just in monetary terms,” said Sandeep Chamling Rai, delegation head for the environmental group WWF in Yokohama. “There can be no cost put to losing a husband, a mother, a son, or a daughter and loved ones. There can be no cost to losing the home where, often, our previous generations settled hundreds of years ago. This is the true cost of inaction on climate change.”

Greenhouse Emissions

Field said the rising trajectory of greenhouse emissions is projected to lead to more than 3 degrees Celsius of additional warming this century. That’s on top of the 0.85 degrees of warming already observed since 1880. UN treaty negotiators aim to limit the total rise to 2 degrees.

Economic losses accelerate with greater levels of warming, the researchers wrote, warning that little analysis has been done for levels of warming of 3 degrees Celsius more than present. That amount of additional warming would lead to “extensive biodiversity loss,” they said.

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England and the Vrije University in Amsterdam, asked for his name to be removed from the summary document because it concentrated too much on the negative effects of climate change, he said. Tol is still a convening lead author of chapter 10.

“Subsequent drafts of the summary for policymakers further and further drifted towards alarmism,” Tol said. “It underplays the opportunities. It does not sufficiently emphasize that with adaptation and development these risks are manageable.”

Mandate

Tol’s views are “very mainstream on some issues and not very mainstream on some others,” said Field. “The 300 scientists’ mandate is to represent the complete range of scientific positions on the issues we address, and we go out there and we try and get authors who represent the full range. I think every author thinks we did a bad job of representing his or her exact perspectives.”

The report does mention some positive impacts of climate change, including improved crop yields in southeastern South America and declining deaths connected to extreme cold. At the same time, it refers to “future risks and more limited potential benefits.”

Today’s report was revised line-by-line by government envoys in a meeting last week. It follows the IPCC’s first installment, on the physical observations of climate change in September. A third study in April will examine the tools available to reduce emissions, and a final report will tie the three together in October.

“Governments own this report,” said Greenpeace’s Kosonen. “They have now gone through it line-by-line. Now we expect them to take it home and act on it, speeding up the transition to clean and safe renewable energy for all.”

 

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

Here's a chart about science. It sums up what is arguably still the most important finding of thousands of scientific papers published on climate change over the last two years: scientists overwhelmingly believe that global warming is manmade.



See that black sliver? That represents the percentage of scientists who have concluded that climate change is not manmade, or is not happening at all, over the last two years. That is approximately 0.01 percent of working climate scientists. The data comes from a new survey from National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell, the man who previously discovered that 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers support the theory that climate change is caused by human activity.

Now let us observe the percentage of Republican congressmen that have concluded that climate change is not manmade:



That black sliver has become an ocean. 130 Republican members of the House of Representatives, or 56 percent of the caucus, have publicly claimed that climate change is not real. Meanwhile, 30 Republican senators, or 65 percent, also disavow climate change. That's 160 out of 278 elected Republicans who rebuke climate change science—for a total of 58 percent, versus 0.01 percent of scientists. It shouldn't come as a surprise, really, given Congress' anti-science hotstreak, but the gulf is shockingly stark nonetheless.

Here, from a 2013 Center for American Progress survey, are some more fun findings:

-90 percent of the Republican leadership in both House and Senate deny climate change
-17 out of 22 Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, or 77 percent, are climate deniers
-22 out of 30 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, or 73 percent deny the reality of climate change
-100 percent of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans have said climate change is not happening or that humans do not cause it
To be fair, there are a few Democrats who also disavow climate science, but they are harder to pin down as it typically goes against the party line. I just tallied Republicans because there was more available information—liberal groups track this stuff like bloodhounds, and rightfully so. The disparity between the meticulously verified reality described by scientists and the delusional fantasyland of our nation's top governors is preposterous. It's impossible to plan for the future when your policymakers have such a poor grip on reality.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...d-spring-starting-way-earlier-than-usual.html

When the Reds and the St. Louis Cardinals take the field in Cincinnati Monday afternoon, they help kick off a Major League Baseball season that starts about five weeks earlier than the first Opening Day. At the inaugural opener of the American Association in May 1882, the Red Stockings lost to the Pittsburgh Alleghenys, 10-9.

Spring itself is starting earlier, too, though it can't keep pace with spring training. Leaves unfurl in the United States on average just three days earlier than they used to, a week earlier in parts of the Southwest and Southeast, according to Climate Matters. CM is a project of the nonprofit science and journalism group Climate Central that dozens of broadcast meteorologists turn to for up-to-date, TV-friendly information about global warming.

But here's the thing. Sixty-three percent of those affable weatherfolk doubt that climate change is primarily driven by human industry, according to a study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) in January. And Americans generally trust their TV weatherperson.

So it's a pretty big deal when broadcast meteorologists -- ironically, men and women who work in front of a green screen -- voice their skepticism of climate change science, especially since there’s little reason to doubt it.


Source: Climate Central; Schwartz
This map shows how many days earlier "first leaf" is occurring in each U.S. state when... Read More
Maybe climate change would be easier to grasp, and less contentious, if it were pitched as a baseball metaphor.

Cue Baseball Metaphor
Meteorology is about as close to climate science as getting a hit is to calculating a lifetime batting average.

Or, consider fielding. When a ball is hit to the outfield, the sophisticated computer under every center fielder's cap calculates where it's coming from and where it'll land. What's important in catching a ball, and in predicting the weather, are so-called initial conditions. For baseball, maybe bat speed and wind strength. For weather, it’s temperature, pressure, moisture, wind speed and direction; models crunch local historical data into forecasts, according to Bill Chameides, dean of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment.

But what if you don't just want to know where the ball's going? What if you want to know how many home runs might be hit in a three-game series?

What matters then are the dimensions of the stadium, Major League Baseball’s rules about bat material and weight, the ball, the team rosters, pitching rotations, the week’s projected weather (as opposed to the prevailing conditions once the ball’s already in the air). In short, a very different set of variables -- what scientists call boundary conditions.

A New Ballgame

Outfielders are usually interested in long-term trends, like their own batting averages, or whether they’ll see postseason play. So why wouldn’t TV meteorologists get into climate trends?

"I don't get it. Unless it’s for some ideological reasons,” says Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist at WLTX news in Columbia, South Carolina. The basics at least are straightforward. "The physics of infrared radiation has been established for well over a century."

Related: This Could Be the Priciest Baseball Park in the Whole Atlantic Ocean
Politics is one reason for the weather-climate split. Another suspect is the human mind.

Helping matters is something more mundane. With blogs, Facebook, Twitter and digital video, TV meteorologists just need more topics and material to write about, and are branching out, says Bud Ward, who runs the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media and conducts climate change seminars for broadcasters. They are also increasingly asked questions about climate change at public appearances, and over social media, and coming up with hard answers.

Mike Nelson in Denver, John Morales in Miami, Paul Gross in Detroit and Paul Douglas in Minneapolis have basically expanded their job descriptions from meteorology to include climate science communication, too -- something now encouraged by the American Meteorological Society.

Climate Matters was run as a pilot the first year, with 12 participants, before jumping to 120 in 65 markets the second year, and growing, said Bernadette Woods Placky, an Emmy Award-winning meteorologist who oversees Climate Central’s CM program (and whose wedding ceremony took place at Camden Yards, home of the Baltimore Orioles).

That’s promising, because the volume of climate science that comes out is relentless. On Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its latest assessment of the impacts of warming. An economics volume follows in April.

“The broadcast meteorologists are the people who have the ear of the public more than anyone else on weather and climate,” said Christopher Field, the founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Global Ecology program and the lead author of next week's new IPCC report. “It should be capitalized on.”

Play Ball!

Baseball fans and climatologists have more in common than one might think. They both share a passion for large data sets that reach back to the late 19th century (here and here). They both have trouble attributing particular events to long-term trends. That home run/hurricane was definitely made likelier by steroids/climate change. Neither can remember the wording of the infield fly rule.

Skies should be clear in Cincinnati Monday afternoon, when the Reds host the Cardinals. Temperatures could reach as high as 70, with winds out of the south-southwest at 9 miles per hour, and a 15 percent chance of precipitation. If ever there were a time to stop thinking and just enjoy the game, Opening Day is it.

 

how man of those papers support the idea of man made global warming being causes by co2?


Go to powells page click on his database and look at the title of the papers.
you can see the vast majority have nothing to do with taking a position on global warming.

So if all those papers support the idea that man made co2 causes warming, why don't you present a link to a few dozen of them?
Even if you found the 41 or so that might out of 14000 papers do... you will realize almost all of those are based on failed models.