16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

Australia and Canada decide to take a path of climate realism


Posted on June 10, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Prime Minister Tony Abbott with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper both say there is no need for carbon pricing to combat climate change.Australia And Canada Form Climate Realist Alliance
Ottawa Citizen, 9 June 2014
Mark Kennedy
The political leaders of Canada and Australia declared on Monday they won’t take any action to battle climate change that harms their national economies and threatens jobs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Australian counterpart, Tony Abbott, made the statements following a meeting on Parliament Hill.



Posted on June 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism. – Mary McCarthy

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

The Daily Mail headline says, “Canada bans government meteorologists from talking about climate change.” It implies government censorship, but is actually another part of the political battle over global warming. It is reminiscent of James Hansen’s false claim that the Bush White House was muzzling him. John Theon, his NASA boss at the time, says in a US Senate Report it was untrue. There is always a story behind a headline and it is rarely what the media report or imply. This Canadian story forewarns of the problems of controlling bureaucracy. Continue reading →


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...a-product-of-bureaucratic-political-activity/
 
jem said:
Peer Reviewed paper showing that

not 97% but only .03% of the papers support the consensus.


http://link.springer.com/article/10....191-013-9647-9

Abstract

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
More...


We went through this already jerm, only 0.3 % expressly said that man has caused most of the warming over the last fifty years. Just like a similar percentage of biology papers expressly say that evolution is responsible for the current state of living organisms. A basic scientific fact is not repeated in every paper within that science.

You are being intellectually dishonest. I call it lying.
 
The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
 
Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.

NAS consensus

13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
 
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.
 
Ricter said:
The idea we have is that there has been no significant change, in 100 years, to the Earth's orbit or to the Sun's cycle to explain away this CO2 increase.
More...
Although Salby's observation that CO2 concentration is lagging but beautifully correlated with the integrated temperature is quite convincing that temperature fluctuations are not primarily caused by CO2 concentration changes. (It could be the other way around.) Until one can explain how a CO2 caused temperature increase could result in the observed phase relationship, one has no choice but to question the idea that CO2 is the main factor controlling temperature.

Additionally, we have learned that natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is far greater (two orders) than the amount of CO2 added from Man's use of fossil fuels. And on top of that the latest studies find evidence seeming to indicate that the biosphere responds far more rapidly to CO2 concentration changes than was previously guessed. In the 1980s it was necessary to make reasonable guesses for all these numbers, but now the new satellite data is showing us that some of our guesses were far off. I think it is going to be "back to the drawing board" to re-think this entire business.

Sadly, some of the key players got emotionally involved, and their pride is apparently interfering with their science. And then you have those like the Koch brothers and Gore getting involved and trying to influence popular opinion. That certainly hasn't helped one bit.
 
piezoe said:
Although Salby's observation that CO2 concentration is lagging but beautifully correlated with the integrated temperature is quite convincing that temperature fluctuations are not primarily caused by CO2 concentration changes. (It could be the other way around.) Until one can explain how a CO2 caused temperature increase could result in the observed phase relationship, one has no choice but to question the idea that CO2 is the main factor controlling temperature.

Additionally, we have learned that natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is far greater (two orders) than the amount of CO2 added from Man's use of fossil fuels. And on top of that the latest studies find evidence seeming to indicate that the biosphere responds far more rapidly to CO2 concentration changes than was previously guessed. In the 1980s it was necessary to make reasonable guesses for all these numbers, but now the new satellite data is showing us that some of our guesses were far off. I think it is going to be "back to the drawing board" to re-think this entire business.

Sadly, some of the key players got emotionally involved, and their pride is apparently interfering with their science. And then you have those like the Koch brothers and Gore getting involved and trying to influence popular opinion. That certainly hasn't helped one bit.
More...

"Additionally, we have learned that natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is far greater (two orders) than the amount of CO2 added from Man's use of fossil fuels."

So the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is falling much faster than we thought?
 
images
 
piezoe said:
Although Salby's observation that CO2 concentration is lagging but beautifully correlated with the integrated temperature is quite convincing that temperature fluctuations are not primarily caused by CO2 concentration changes. (It could be the other way around.) Until one can explain how a CO2 caused temperature increase could result in the observed phase relationship, one has no choice but to question the idea that CO2 is the main factor controlling temperature.

Additionally, we have learned that natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is far greater (two orders) than the amount of CO2 added from Man's use of fossil fuels. And on top of that the latest studies find evidence seeming to indicate that the biosphere responds far more rapidly to CO2 concentration changes than was previously guessed. In the 1980s it was necessary to make reasonable guesses for all these numbers, but now the new satellite data is showing us that some of our guesses were far off. I think it is going to be "back to the drawing board" to re-think this entire business.

Sadly, some of the key players got emotionally involved, and their pride is apparently interfering with their science. And then you have those like the Koch brothers and Gore getting involved and trying to influence popular opinion. That certainly hasn't helped one bit.
More...


Just amazing..you keep forgetting that CO2 can lead or lag, why do you keep forgetting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? ..and again with this Salby crap study that is not relevant. Unbelievable.

Maybe you did not read this the first ten times I posted it.....


"From the foregoing, it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts principal control (80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing) over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such, they are controlled by the radiative forcing supplied by the non-condensing GHGs.

The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming. Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top