16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

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.
 
The problem, in a nutshell, faced by those who have hypothesized that Man's CO2 release is causing, or will cause, a dire change in climate, is that some observations made by reputable climate and atmosphere scientists are utterly inconsistent with the hypothesis. An hypothesis can not be accepted as correct until it is consistent with all observations. A further problem is that there are observations consistent with the CO2 caused climate change hypothesis that are equally consistent with alternative hypotheses.

There are those who maintain that it is better to be safe than sorry and an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. " What if our CO2 release really is wrecking the climate?" they say. From a scientific viewpoint, however, as long as there are inconsistent observations, the hypothesis is wrong. It makes no sense to base ones actions on an hypothesis that is wrong.

Sadly, the would-be prevention in this case is hugely expensive and disruptive. If it weren't, there wouldn't be much harm in doing something that makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. In the present case, however, great harm could result from proceeding down a road that the current science is telling us is the wrong road.

The prudent thing to do is to wait until the peer review process is complete and the question of who is right and who is wrong can be decided with as much certainty as any question of this sort can be. This isn't a question that can be correctly decided by polls or in the political arena.
 
piezoe said:
The problem, in a nutshell, faced by those who have hypothesized that Man's CO2 release is causing, or will cause, a dire change in climate, is that some observations made by reputable climate and atmosphere scientists are utterly inconsistent with the hypothesis. An hypothesis can not be accepted as correct until it is consistent with all observations. A further problem is that there are observations consistent with the CO2 caused climate change hypothesis that are equally consistent with alternative hypotheses.

There are those who maintain that it is better to be safe than sorry and an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. " What if our CO2 release really is wrecking the climate?" they say. From a scientific viewpoint, however, as long as there are inconsistent observations, the hypothesis is wrong. It makes no sense to base ones actions on an hypothesis that is wrong.

Sadly, the would-be prevention in this case is hugely expensive and disruptive. If it weren't, there wouldn't be much harm in doing something that makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. In the present case, however, great harm could result from proceeding down a road that the current science is telling us is the wrong road.

The prudent thing to do is to wait until the peer review process is complete and the question of who is right and who is wrong can be decided with as much certainty as any question of this sort can be. This isn't a question that can be correctly decided by polls or in the political arena.
More...

Another of your patented crocks of total horseshit, gussied-up to sound impressive.

It has been decided asshole. The debate in scientific circles is over.

You're another one like jerm that is disingenuous POS liar.

Doing something now will cost far less than doing it later and if we don't act soon we face catastrophic problems. There is a very real possibility that future effects will be worse than has been predicted.

Assholes like you only act to obstruct action to prevent this. You suck.
 
More Arctic Sea Ice Than 110 years Ago
Posted on July 14, 2014

People are getting stuck in the ice in 2014, but the Northwest Passage was open in 1904.

screenhunter_1003-jul-14-06-47.gif


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/more-arctic-sea-ice-than-110-years-ago/
 
piezoe said:
The problem, in a nutshell, faced by those who have hypothesized that Man's CO2 release is causing, or will cause, a dire change in climate, is that some observations made by reputable climate and atmosphere scientists are utterly inconsistent with the hypothesis. An hypothesis can not be accepted as correct until it is consistent with all observations. A further problem is that there are observations consistent with the CO2 caused climate change hypothesis that are equally consistent with alternative hypotheses.

There are those who maintain that it is better to be safe than sorry and an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. " What if our CO2 release really is wrecking the climate?" they say. From a scientific viewpoint, however, as long as there are inconsistent observations, the hypothesis is wrong. It makes no sense to base ones actions on an hypothesis that is wrong.

Sadly, the would-be prevention in this case is hugely expensive and disruptive. If it weren't, there wouldn't be much harm in doing something that makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. In the present case, however, great harm could result from proceeding down a road that the current science is telling us is the wrong road.

The prudent thing to do is to wait until the peer review process is complete and the question of who is right and who is wrong can be decided with as much certainty as any question of this sort can be. This isn't a question that can be correctly decided by polls or in the political arena.
More...

If you insist upon applying the scientific method then you are a man-made global warming denier.

Meanwhile Al Gore has realized the the louder and shriller he becomes the more money he makes. Nice racket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top