Ummm. Do you by chance read any climate sites, perhaps an IPCC report or two? It wouldn't seem so. The observations indicating low climate sensitivity, which the IPCC had to acknowledge and cite, are numerous and varied. One obvious one is that the thermometers have gotten very stubborn since 1998 they've refused to go up in response to the higher and higher CO2 levels. If sensitivity were high, this would not have happened. Another indicator is measurements of cloud feedbacks in the tropics, which were strongly negative, indicating an overall negative feedback on temperatures. A high sensitivity requires a very strong positive feedback, because the effect of CO2 alone is quite weak. Here are some tidbits for you: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) -- IPCC AR5 1C is about what CO2 does without any amplification, so less than 1C isn't all that likely. Also note that AR4 had said that an ECS of 1.5 wasn't likely, but since then they've lowered their estimates because observational data didn't support the old ones. Also note that in the AR5 Working Group 1 report, 11 out of 19 observational studies of ECS go below 1.5 degrees C. Since you obviously don't listen to the scientists, here are some other nice bits: Regarding the pause: The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade. --- IPCC AR5. the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence). The decline in the rate of increase in ERF is primarily attributed to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing but there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend. -- IPCC AR5 Meanwhile, in an interview on NPR earlier today, warmist cult leader Michael Mann (of Hockey Stick fame) said that if the Keystone Pipeline gets built, life on Earth will certainly become extinct, and that our chance to stop this imminent catastrophe is very narrow. That's your cult leader. Perhaps he'll convince you to self-castrate and signal for rescue from an alien spaceship that's hiding behind a nearby comet. Remember, it's science!
It's amusing that you reference the IPCC report when it overwhelmingly rejects your assertions and supports the notion that global warming is happening, and that it's happening now. In other words, the IPCC AR5 is unequivocal in its assertion that global warming is real, it's already here, and that human activity is the predominant cause. Once again, the evidence overwhelmingly supports such conclusions. Once again, your post ignores (or marginalizes) such a preponderance of evidence (and is contradicted by your own cited sources). Therefore, yet again, your post is unscientific and irrational.
Um, no. You've idiotically cited the headlines from the summary for policymakers, which is does not come from scientists, it is decided upon by a meeting of politicians or their politically appointed representatives, each of which is given veto power over every word in the summary. Some of the top IPCC scientists resigned in protest over the absolutely unsupportable claptrap put out in the summary for policy makers, which has virtually no connection to the output of the climatologists who put together the science portion of AR5 and the conclusions therein. So again, the scientists who wrote the scientific aspects of the report dismissed the summary you cited as alarmist nonsense that wasn't supported by science. You got sucked into the cult driven political version which keeps the pigs feeding at the trough and the massive kickbacks flowing.
Gladly! One source is Richard Tol, who was an author on AR3 through AR5, who wrote this post, and another is lead author Robert Stavins who wrote this. They convey a bit about how the sausage is made, and why they left in disgust, having seen how the sausage is made.
Thank you for citing your sources. Unfortunately, this still doesn't explain a thing about what you've been going on about for pages. We're discussing anthropogenic climate change. Please quite misdirecting. Your attempts to discredit the IPCC, using rumor, gossip, bias, and backbiting, does you no good save to give the indication that you are unable to produce supportive evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't occurring. Please do so immediately.
Um, just Google a temperature graph from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, or any other source of temperature graphs. I can't make you walk the path, I can only show you the path. The truth is out there, and it's published, and it's discussed widely, and none of that discussion penetrates down to this level of the Internet, where the planet could be struck by a world-ending asteroid and the denizens would still be talking about My Little Pony, which is apparently why they think they're defending science when they haven't gotten an update from Science since Milli Vanilla and Duran Duran dominated the FM bands.
You made the statement. You back it up. Everything you've posted up to this point has been a generalization, an assumption, or just gossip. You have not shown any falsifiable evidence to support your claim. I won't ask again.
I find this hilarious. Bickering over the inevitable. It's no use worrying about "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", whatever name of the week you want to give it. We can't change it now. The damage is done and we won't be changing our ways any time soon. Instead of dealing with the problem, we will "invent" and "market" ways to deal with the symptoms. We done fucked ourselves....Get used to it. (yes this is a generalization as well, and I can't provide any peer reviewed data.... )
In this case optimism would be foolhardy. Greed, ignorance and shortsightedness is our downfall. I'm not excluding myself from that. I love the creature comforts I have, but i do realize that my lifestyle is detrimental to humanity as a whole.
If it is detrimental, and you wish to change it, change it. Small changes add up, and to be honest. Just being defeatist isn't going to help. That's only an excuse.
I still don't think Global Warming is a bad thing. Yeah, New York needs to invest in dams, but Sahara is turning green. One loses, one profits. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. If we were living at the end of the last ice age, we'd be panicking that the glacier covering northern Europe retracts. You'd find hundreds of arguments for protecting that glacier. In fact, ten thousand years ago, the place where I am writing this was covered by ice, several hundreds of meters thick. That didn't turn out too bad for me, did it? Should we rethink the depths of our footprints on Earth? Sure, knowing what you're doing is never a bad thing. But is the climate going to kill us? No.
^So what you're saying is "It's not going to kill ME, so screw future generations"? Sheesh. I hope you don't have kids.
Why are you guys arguing over whether there's been a 15-year pause in warming? There has been. I'm no AGW skeptic but the data is unambiguous. There are a lot of guesses as to why the warming trend has slowed to near-zero, but none have been confirmed as of yet. We don't know if warming will resume this year, in 10 years, or never. I'm not defender of gturner but he's at least right about that particular detail that people seem to keep harping on. Yeah, global warming's no big deal unless you live in one of those places that's become desertified. Countries that are small and aren't particularly wealthy will suffer most. Yes, the wealthy Western countries will ride it out, so I guess that just means to hell with everyone else.
I've never understood the fierce resistance to the idea that our technology could be affecting the climate. Even if it weren't a sure thing (which of course it is), what's so horrible about taking some precautions? How would it hurt us to modify our technological infrastructure to be carbon-neutral and have less impact on the environment? Sure, it would take some work and cost some money to make the changes, but the end result would be cleaner air and more efficient technology, not to mention profits for the companies that invested in green technologies. I mean, if we make the effort to protect the environment and it turns out to have been unnecessary, we haven't really lost anything. But if we don't make the effort to protect the environment and it turns out it was necessary, then we're screwed. So the choice should be self-evident. Of course the threat is overwhelmingly confirmed by now, and denying it is about as scientific as joining the Flat Earth Society; but even before it was overwhelmingly concerned, it still would've made far more sense to err on the side of caution and embrace greener technology just in case. It's no different from taking out an insurance policy on your car or your home -- not because you know something bad will happen, but just in case it does. So I really don't understand why anyone would be ferociously opposed to just being careful. Especially now that there's no longer any rational basis for denying the danger and anyone who keeps doing so must deliberately and consciously ignore or twist the facts in order to perpetuate that position. What's the benefit of doing so? Or rather, what's the harm in conceding, beyond the blow to their egos?
As much as I agree that climate change is a serious problem, you are dramatically understating just how profound our technological and lifestyle changes would have to be in order to cut our carbon emissions to the levels necessary to stop, much less roll back, climate change.
Do I what? That article is very well referenced. Did you even read it? It's even more hilarious that you can't see what all this really is. ... and quite disturbing that folks just don't care. I have watched the origional many times. Coming out against nucs is not the same as saying we are entering a period where 9 of 10 species on the planet are going to go exitinct based on iffy science. I can't believe you all just accept that tripe. As long as there is a party that tends to use science for a political power grab, they will get criticized as such.
Sure, but change can be beneficial. I can understand a reluctance to change the status quo, but given what's at stake, it's just not a sensible gamble in this case to leave things as they are out of the hope that it'll be okay. There's just far too much to lose if you're wrong. Inertia is one thing, but these days it's reached the point of fanatical denialism, and I don't see why.