May 2014, the warmest May ever recorded.

[jem]

a few days ago you were talking about how warm it was ..now the same areas are under a cold snap.

weather is not climate.
overall the last 17.6 the world wide aver temp... the ones the models use, are down.
all this other stuff you post may be interesting but its not climate change.

only a moron troll does not now the difference between weather and climate change.

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

 

[jem]

this is reality... co2 is not going to have a dangerous impact this century. that is a lot of time to investigate reality and fix things.

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 atmosphere’s “sensitivity” 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 children’s 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/

 

[Ricter]

this is reality... co2 is not going to have a dangerous impact this century. that is a lot of time to investigate reality and fix things.

I had not heard of Matt Ridley until now. So I dug a bit. Took about 2 mins with google. I'd run from that source if I were you.

 

[jem]

ricter --- messenger assassination by innuendo? is that what you pre fascists are stooping too now?

why must you all always try to attack the messenger instead of the facts?
do some digging did he report the IPCC situation accurately?

that would be a reasonable criticism.

by the way he wrote this at the end of the article...

The IPCC produced two reports last year. One said that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than 2% of GDP by the end of this century. The other said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to be 4% of GDP. Why do something that you know will do more harm than good?

I saw that reported by others last year as well.

I had not heard of Matt Ridley until now. So I dug a bit. Took about 2 mins with google. I'd run from that source if I were you.

 

[Ricter]

ricter --- messenger assassination by innuendo? is that what you pre fascists are stooping too now?

why must you all always try to attack the messenger instead of the facts?
.

I don't always attack the messenger, in fact I'm the one typically pointing it out. The problem with Ridley's arguments, for your point of view, is that he's backed up all the way to rearguard action: CO2 won't make much difference anyway. He's agreed with the AGW argument all the way up to but not including the estimates of its harm to Man. As for that last bit, many experts are saying he's wrong. Now, none of us here are experts, we have to rely on these experts, but it seems to me you've picked an expert who is but a sneeze away from accepting the entire AGW argument. What's a bit ridiculous about that is that you continue to argue the AAGW position at every stage, from whether there even is any warming, now to this point where "it won't matter anyway". Your arguments have a very "throw everything and see what sticks" character to them.

 

[jem]

he was pointing out that the IPCCs models seem to indicate it won't make much of a difference anyway. That is not my argument... I am not even sure he agrees with the IPCC.

My position simple and accurate... science does not know if man made co2 is causing warming. Its all conjecture based on unsuccessful models and guesses.

I don't always attack the messenger, in fact I'm the one typically pointing it out. The problem with Ridley's arguments, for your point of view, is that he's backed up all the way to rearguard action: CO2 won't make much difference anyway. He's agreed with the AGW argument all the way up to but not including the estimates of its harm to Man. As for that last bit, many experts are saying he's wrong. Now, none of us here are experts, we have to rely on these experts, but it seems to me you've picked an expert who is but a sneeze away from accepting the entire AGW argument. What's a bit ridiculous about that is that you continue to argue the AAGW position at every stage, from whether there even is any warming, now to this point where "it won't matter anyway". Your arguments have a very "throw everything and see what sticks" character to them.

 

[jem]

this video explains that science knows nothing although Dr. Spencer suspects co2 would do some warming.

<iframe width="480" height="308" src="http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/49789102?v=3&amp;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>

 

[Ricter]

he was pointing out that the IPCCs models seem to indicate it won't make much of a difference anyway. That is not my argument... I am not even sure he agrees with the IPCC.

My position simple and accurate... science does not know if man made co2 is causing warming. Its all conjecture based on unsuccessful models and guesses.

From what I saw, admittedly a cursory look, the IPCC has a range of scenarios, and Ridley is fixed on one where we won't see any real harm from CO2 for 85 years. But that scenario assumes we begin cutting CO2 emissions now. I don't see how Ridley helps you much.

 

[futurecurrents]

I don't always attack the messenger, in fact I'm the one typically pointing it out. The problem with Ridley's arguments, for your point of view, is that he's backed up all the way to rearguard action: CO2 won't make much difference anyway. He's agreed with the AGW argument all the way up to but not including the estimates of its harm to Man. As for that last bit, many experts are saying he's wrong. Now, none of us here are experts, we have to rely on these experts, but it seems to me you've picked an expert who is but a sneeze away from accepting the entire AGW argument. What's a bit ridiculous about that is that you continue to argue the AAGW position at every stage, from whether there even is any warming, now to this point where "it won't matter anyway". Your arguments have a very "throw everything and see what sticks" character to them.

I wonder why he does that?

 

[futurecurrents]

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."