Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

The data, scientists and the IPCC.

[DaS Energy]

I have seen the science for 10 years no warming but not17.

[DaS Energy]

A report by American Assn. for the Advancement of Science

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-03 ... z2wPZ715bj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 18/03/2014

"The evidence is overwhelming: levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising," the report says. "Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising. The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat waves are getting worse as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying."

[IQS.RLOW]

I have seen the science for 10 years no warming but not17.

Well, you can go back and start from page 1 in this thread and read from there. It's been raised and referenced many times, or you can go and reference hadcrut et al, they will all tell you the same thing than SN chooses to ignore.

There has been no significant warming for 17 years.

[Super Nova]

The data, scientists and the IPCC.

Let's look at it. this statement was made 9 months ago and IQ and the deniers have latched onto it.

Warming has not stopped, but it has slowed considerably.

There has been no significant warming for 17 years.

True if you understand what significant means. An extract below.

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months

Posted on June 13, 2013 By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the New York Times has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades.

...
On Dr. Santer’s 17-year test, then, the models may have failed. A rethink is needed.

The fact that an apparent warming rate equivalent to almost 0.9 Cº is statistically insignificant may seem surprising at first sight, but there are two reasons for it. First, the published uncertainties are substantial: approximately 0.15 Cº either side of the central estimate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/n ... -4-months/

Some background for you deniers that say I don't read your one sided propoganda

Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.

Today, factory pollution from China and other developing countries could be playing a similar role in blocking some sunlight. We will not know for sure until we send up satellites that can make better measurements of particles in the air.

What happened when the mid-20th-century lull came to an end? You guessed it: an extremely rapid warming of the planet.

So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.

We might one day find ourselves looking back on the crazy weather of the 2010s with a deep yearning for those halcyon days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/scien ... html?_r=2&

Now this was posted and refered to in the above article explaining what has gone wrong including a remodel.

Estimating the Underlying Trend in Recent Warming

12 June, 2013 (20:10) | Data Comparisons, global climate change Written by: SteveF

Warming has not stopped, but it has slowed considerably. This analysis can’t prove the cause for that change in rate of warming, but any suggestion that solar cycles, volcanic aerosols, and ENSO are completely responsible for the recent slower warming rate is not supported by the data. Some may suggest long term cyclical variation in the secular warming rate has caused the recent slow-down, but this analysis can’t support or refute that suggestion.

It is encouraging that the influence of the ENI on global temperatures (as calculated by the by the global regression analysis) is just slightly more than half the influence found for the tropics alone (30S to 30N): 0.1099+/- 0.0118 global versus 0.1959+/-0.016 tropics. Since Carrick showed almost no correlation of ENSO with temperatures outside the tropics, and since 30S to 30N represents exactly half the Earth’s surface, we could reasonably expect the regression constant for the entire globe to be about half as large as for the tropics… and it is indeed very close to half (and within the calculated uncertainty limits).

The analysis indicates that global temperatures were significantly depressed between ~1964 and ~1999 compared to what they would have been in the absence of major volcanoes.

Here are a few caveats and uncertainties. First, the analysis is only as good as the data that when into it. Historical volcanic forcing from GISS is at best an estimate for all eruptions before Pinatubo; if the GISS volcanic forcing is wrong, then this could distort the regression results. The same is true for all other data, including the Hadley temperature series and the sunspot number model used to calculate solar forcing. While sunspot number is an excellent proxy for solar intensity over the last 3 solar cycles, that does not guarantee sunspot number has always been an equally excellent proxy for solar intensity.

Second, the single constant low-pass filter function used to calculate lagged solar and volcanic forcings is a fairly crude representation of reality. While the true lag function is almost certainly similar in shape, it will not be identical, and this too could distort the regression analysis to some extent. The reality is that there are a multitude of lag constants associated with heat transfer to/from different locations, especially different depths of the ocean.

Third, it is tempting to infer very low climate sensitivity from the regression constants for volcanic aerosols and solar cycle forcing (these constants have units of degrees/watt/M^2, and the values correspond to a climate sensitivity of a little less than 1C per doubling of CO2). This temptation should be resisted, because the model does not consider the influence of (slower) heat transfer between the surface and deeper ocean. In other words, the calculated impact of solar and volcanic forcings would be larger (implying somewhat higher climate sensitivity) if a better model of heat uptake/release to/from the ocean were used.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/es ... t-warming/

[DaS Energy]

"Today, factory pollution from China and other developing countries could be playing a similar role in blocking some sunlight. We will not know for sure until we send up satellites that can make better measurements of particles in the air."

A Satellite was put up and its instruments found carbon was blocking all but 5% of incoming sunlight.

[Super Nova]

A Satellite was put up and its instruments found carbon was blocking all but 5% of incoming sunlight.

I don't believe this statement DaS. Do you have a reference.

I might believe that it blocks 95% of the wavelength aligned to the (quanta, spectrum) carbon atom.... maybe. Not all but 5% of incoming sunlight.

[DaS Energy]

Sorry don't remember the source but the report is the most read yet say the scientists conducting the research. I thought the report as posted in Political Animal.

[DaS Energy]

"'We have the environment department, Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO to provide comprehensive and independent advice to the government on climate change,' Mr Hunt said in a statement.
Barely a week goes by without a green group releasing a report on the cost of inaction on climate change, but it's harder to overlook a major two-year study by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.
They are the nation's premier research institutions and, along with the environment department, the sole agencies keeping the government up to date on climate science.
Their message is sobering. If carbon emissions from human activities - which are at record levels - continue to grow unabated, the world could be five degrees warmer by 2070.
Given world leaders have agreed that a two-degree rise in global warming would be catastrophic and should be avoided at all costs, you can only imagine what havoc five degrees would wreak.' Sky-News

[Super Nova]

Thanks DaS. (can you provide links to these sources as references going forward)

IQ, RS (and any other deniers)

I have posted evidence that the greatest minds on the planet think Climate Change and the threat from it is real. Which include:

-The Royal Society - bunch of the most respected POMS
- AAAS - bunch of the most respected yanks
- CSIRO - the most respected Aussies

Now, even if you don't like the truth their views and the forecasts they provide will... I repeat will influence government policy. So get ready for it.

The good news is that in Australia the current government is removing Labor's piss poor approach to the problem and they are going to listen to the CSIRO.

So suck it up princesses. You are losing the battle for doing nothing because the risk are growing and growing. There will eventually be action because the risk is real and the forecast by science will be true within tolerances. Time to build your Ark or flood defences.

Climate Change Authority reportMedia release
27 February 2014

The Climate Change Authority's Targets and Progress Review Final Report shows the ineffectiveness of Labor's carbon tax. [Typical isn't it]

It is clear that there has been no change to previous analysis by the Productivity Commission that found no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.

In its first year of operation, the carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the Australian economy and a direct hit on around 75,000 businesses - yet emissions reduced barely 0.1 per cent. [I understand why IQ is pissed orf... but that is labors doing not the scientific community]

The carbon tax is inflicting massive damage on Australian households and businesses but it simply doesn't work.

The Climate Change Authority's report also confirms that many other countries are taking direct action to reduce emissions in ways that do not involve raising electricity prices, reducing competiveness and hurting every single household in the country.

The Government is committed to reducing Australia's emissions by 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. This will be achieved through our Direct Action plan - with the Emissions Reduction Fund as the key element.

Any additional targets will be reviewed in 2015 in the lead up to the Paris conference, as has been our longstanding position.

Through the Emissions Reduction Fund the Government will encourage low-cost, effective emissions reduction opportunities - unlike the carbon tax, which is a high-cost, ineffective approach that does not cut domestic emissions over the long-term.

Unlike Labor, we won't tax the whole economy to achieve our emissions reduction target.[Fucking on the money]

Along with the carbon tax, the Government is committed to abolishing the Climate Change Authority as part of our commitment to removing duplication with costly bureaucracies. [Excellent]

We have the Environment Department, Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO to provide comprehensive and independent advice to the Government on climate change. [Well start to listen to them then]

Legislation to repeal the carbon tax and the Climate Change Authority has been before the Senate since December last year but a vote is being held up by Labor.

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/ ... 40227.html