http://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/0....html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com.ph/ yep because of " climate change" children are dying of lack of water. oh and also because of "climate change" there is more flooding.. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-raising-flood-risk-in-the-northern-u-s/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution. Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far. But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s. It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40. The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space. The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S. You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low. The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate. Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
LOL Roy Spencer. A complete fool for fools. Is a creationist. But yes Roy.....I'm amazed you know this.... "Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s." so...... *************** Again, more proof of just how fucking stupid Trumpers are. They actually quote fools and find the most out-there sources to feed their ignorant delusions. Ignoring the actual experts and common sense. Next up, they will be quoting Mad magazine.
So he's not a climatologist or climate expert? How about John Christy at the UAH? Because they are Jesus freaks they can't be good scientists? This is where the wheels come off for Futurecurrent. Mankind has put into the air 1/3 of all CO2 it ever has in the last 20 years. And barely, if any, warming. Bzzzzzz. Try again.
Yes try again and find the 0.1% that deny man made global warming. Because Christy doesn't deny it,admits his original satellite temp analysis was wrong (dumb Trumpers STILL don't know this) and yes Spencer is an ass, but even he agrees that man made global warming is real. And proving once again just how fucking stupid Trumpers are, you say that the world is barely warming "if at all" showing amazing ignorance and delusion as is typical for dumb fucking Trumpers. I won't bother showing facts. Dumb fucking Trumpers ignore them.
This statement of yours, so far as I can tell, is an accurate statement. Put what is it's point if other than to mislead? According to the Recent (2014) study of the opinion of scientists working and publishing in the field of climate studies/"global warming" reported in the Bulletin of the Meteorology Society, roughly half of the scientists included in the study say they are uncertain whether Man is effecting climate in a significant way. They express various nuances in their opinions. Some believe that man is affecting climate and the effect is probably significant. Some say that although changes in CO2 may have a small effect on surface temperature, it is probably too small an effect to be of concern. All of these hundreds of meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists surveyed would be included in your statement above that I have quoted. The way the Statement is worded however, it contributes nothing to our understanding of the varying positions of climate study experts, although it is liable to mislead an incautious reader in to thinking that there is a consensus regarding the validity of Hansen's AGW Hypothesis, when in reality there is none; not yet anyway.
Meteorologists are weathermen, not climate scientists. Many weathermen are dumb fucking Trumpers and or ideologically crazed libertarians. Yes there is essentially complete consensus on man made global warming, or what you call "Hansen's hypothesis" in a continuing dishonest effort to ad hom and diminish. I have amply demonstrated that in multiple ways here. Try again doubt merchant scum. And go fuck yourself. But while we are talking about weathermen.... 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
Futurecurrents. How many times did you tell us co2 and global warming were causing or intensifying the drought in California? How many times you troll... You have the guts to make fun of Spencer... who tracks the satellite data for NASA. Hows that AGW fear mongering crap looking now. oh look spencer is calling you a a troll who sells greenhouse gases for a living. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/satellite-reveals-end-of-n-california-drought/ January 14th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. With more rain and snow on the way, the supposed “unending drought” that the New York Times reported on last year has, in a matter of weeks, ended — at least in Northern California. Yesterday’s color satellite imagery from NASA shows the dramatic changes which have occurred since the same date three years ago: – Widespread and deep snowpack – Greening vegetation – Rivers overflowing their banks – Strong river discharge into the Pacific Ocean
So a society of meteorologists are geniuses with the right idea....but a meteorologist is a fucking Trumper retard? You must be the stupid bastard alive. Any salient reason why temps have barely gone up the last few decades when we have pumped 1/3 of all CO2 than we did ever in human history? Wow - you are a complete science denying moron. Still no evidence that manmade CO2 causes catastrophic warming eh?? Have you shit your pants?