Global Warming

[Rorschach]

C(lie)mate Change
gotta love it.

[Super Nova]

Evidence is all around us. Open your eyes you guys.

Key points: this article was published today.

- Any lingering doubts about the immediacy of climate impacts on the lives of Americans are now permanently laid to rest, thanks to four extensive reports from thousands of scientists. [you know, people who know what they are fucking talking about]
- The report laid out in clear detail why the entire scientific community no longer has any doubts whatsoever about the nature and extent of the climate risk to the U.S. economy and communities [no doubts, why do deniers continue to propagate doubt, what is their agenda?]
- is that nearly everyone can now sense that the artificially contrived science "debate" about whether climate change is real is ending for good [Great, I agree the deniers have artificially contrived this debate. This thread represents this]
- Climate change isn't theoretical, or imaginary, or hypothetical or even political. It's just real, here and now [Can you deniers feel you are losing the debate. Suck it up princesses.... ]



The experts in science disagree however I am still not convinced by the deniers.

Climate Change, in Real Time - what we know
Jeff Nesbit was the director of public affairs for two prominent federal science agencies. This article was adapted from one that first appeared in U.S. News & World Report. Nesbit contributed the article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

It's been an extraordinary six weeks for climate scientists. Any lingering doubts about the immediacy of climate impacts on the lives of Americans are now permanently laid to rest, thanks to four extensive reports from thousands of scientists.

It began with a straight-talking, no-nonsense report called "What We Know" from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — the world's largest general science organization — earlier this spring. The report laid out in clear detail why the entire scientific community no longer has any doubts whatsoever about the nature and extent of the climate risk to the U.S. economy and communities.

Weeks later, the second and third of successive reports from different arms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued separate, detailed reports on the current science around climate change impacts in the world, and the potential costs to society and the economy right now if people don't change our energy patterns. [Michael Mann: Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence (Op-Ed)]

And then this week, a report written by hundreds of American scientists culminated this six-week run of world-class, peer-reviewed science reports with the congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment, which laid climate impacts literally at the doorsteps and window panes of most Americans.

Climate change isn't a computer model, a fuzzy prediction, a cute picture of polar bears on shrinking icebergs, or some far-off, distant threat that people who aren't born yet will have to deal with. It's here, now — and it's disrupting our lives.

It's affecting food prices through extended droughts and flooding basements in extreme rainfall events — the types of dry and wet extremes that scientists have been telling us for years would be part of a changing, warming world. Now we can see these things with our own eyes, out our own windows.

It's causing farmers to plant earlier. Bird lovers are watching habitats shrink and change. Lobstermen are seeing the corrosive effects of both warming waters and ocean acidification change their way of life. Fire chiefs are facing the stark reality of bigger, faster wildfires lasting year round instead of contained to seasons. [60 Million American Birdwatchers Chase Ever-Shrinking Quarry (Op-Ed)]

What is extraordinary is that nearly everyone can now sense that the artificially contrived science "debate" about whether climate change is real is ending for good — creating space for the more logical, rational discussion about America's proper role in dealing with a significant, growing and increasingly urgent problem.

It's about time.

Just as Americans finally came to realize that, yes, smoking cigarettes does cause lung cancer — despite years of effort to manufacture doubt about the science of smoking and cancer — the very same sorts of science answers have now emerged clearly for climate change amid a sea of deliberate and manufactured doubt.

Climate change is real — and it's starting to cause disruptions in all of the various ways that climate scientists have said it would.

There are now just a handful of outliers like Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., left for the media to go to for a science "debate" quote or cutesy sound bite about how global warming isn't real; that it's a "hoax;" or that climate scientists are part of some far-flung "conspiracy."

As CNN morning anchor Carol Costello wrote recently: "There is no debate. Climate change is real. And, yes, we [in the media] are, in part, to blame."

Yes, there are still uncertainties to be dealt with in the science — like whether the coming El Niño cycle will cause a record-setting spike in global temperatures this year or next the way it did in 1997; or just how much heat from greenhouse gas emissions are being absorbed in the oceans instead of the atmosphere.

But what is now apparent, to nearly all, is the simple fact that climate change has arrived, and is making itself known. [This is What Global Warming Looks Like (VIDEO: Op-Ed)]

As part of the release of the National Climate Assessment at the White House on Tuesday, a local South Florida official — Kristin Jacobs, from Broward County — explained with great passion the ways in which climate change is now affecting cities and communities. Others on her panel of local leaders echoed her statements, as clearly as they could.

Climate change isn't theoretical, or imaginary, or hypothetical or even political. It's just real, here and now, and community officials have to deal with it, Jacobs said. Seawater is intruding everywhere where it shouldn't, and local Republican and Democratic politicians have putdown their snappy, sound bite political arguments in an effort to figure out how to make sure their cities can adapt to what is happening.

This same conversation, she said, is occurring in 60 percent of American cities where some level of climate impacts are starting to be felt. More than 25 states, and their governors, are now planning for ways in which they have to adapt to climate impacts here and now.

There is a sort of unspoken rule in national policy debates that plays out over and over. Think of it as the 75-25 rule: When 75 percent of the country is finally able to ignore a very loud, vocal minority (the 25 percent) that refuses to face facts, evidence or science on any given issue — from marriage equality and civil rights to regulating cigarettes and access to affordable health care — then space is created for national solutions.

We're just about there, finally, on climate change. What happens next — where both political parties in the U.S. pivot on the question of what to do about the wolf at the door — is what will rightly become the focus of attention now on this issue for the next few years.

Nesbit's most recent Op-Ed was "Is America Now an Oligarchy Nation?" This Op-Ed was adapted from "Climate Change Is Happening, Here and Now," which first appeared in Nesbit's column At the Edge in U.S. News & World Report. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

http://www.livescience.com/45843-climat ... ments.html

[Rorschach]

Honestly why do we even bother with you?

[Rorschach]

Climate Change is real.... really?
Who said it isn't?
Not the people you refuse to acknowledge as scientists, who you also call deniers....

We all acknowledge the climate has changed and will continue to change... ICE AGE anyone

We know Mann's Hockey Stick is a fraud.
We know the IPCC is more political than scientific.

Let us know when you finally catch up.

[Rorschach]

This month the Global Warming Alarmist Ratbags were at it again making claims about record high temps and that record numbers of people are concerned about... you guessed it Climate Change.

However... where I live that is not the case at all.

also...

Only 3% of Americans name “environment” as top issue.

Public are terminally bored with climate. Anderegg denies devastating Climategate damage

http://joannenova.com.au/?s=2014

[Rorschach]

David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat

Dr David Kear
Climate Depot reports on a New Zealand geoscientist who has worked at the highest levels and has just released a detailed statement about why the threat of rising sea-levels has been blown out of all proportions, and “An ‘innocent gas, CO2, has been demonized and criminalized’”.

“The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible.”

Kear laments the ‘Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat’.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david- ... nt-threat/

[Rorschach]

A month after I read a report on the "record" Antarctic Sea ICE... the dear old ABC reports it is at an all time low...

Yet here is another report, one of many saying the opposite to the ABC.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/c ... s-results/

[Super Nova]

Climate change deniers pickup on every mistake an uninformed biased journalist makes.

These errors in reporting do not make the reality less real.

[Super Nova]

Great article. may have been post here earlier.

It's real. They just have been influenced by government to pick the most dramatic potential outcomes to promote action.... now that is a crime.


Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON

Interview The "certainty" that underpins European and UK climate policy may be wildly misplaced, as the models that the climate science establishment presents to politicians as evidence run far too hot.

That's according to a report released yesterday by UK think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

And this is very good news, says the report's author, Nicholas Lewis. Lewis is a relative newcomer to climate science who published his first peer-reviewed paper in 2011. Lewis also submitted written evidence published in the IPCC's Fifth assessment Report, AR5.

Lewis doesn't disagree that CO2 contributes to global warming - and most of the additional CO2 is caused by humans. The science today, however, shows around half a degree of surface temperature warming manifesting itself over the next 70 years. This the most important climate discovery in recent years - and you may reasonably think it should have grabbed the headlines.

However, with politicians pleading to be told what to do by scientists, the IPCC process - dominated by bureaucrats and politicians - pulled its punches. It acknowledged the finding but only referred to the lowering obliquely, and didn't explain why its own estimates had been lowered. It omitted to make a "best guess" at all - unlike in previous blockbusters.

.....

'Noisy' data

Q. So away from the modelling, which is questionable as evidence, it seems that climate science really comes down disputes about how you process the numbers statistically. Tell me where Bayes fits in.

Lewis: Bayesian maths went out of favour in a big way because of its subjectivity. It came back in favour about 30-40 years ago, and it's stayed: it's very well suited to computer simulation and Monte Carlo methods. It has some good theoretical basis. The problem is that people haven’t got to grips thoroughly with the choice of Prior.

Q. A prior is a "seed" or a "nudge"?

Lewis: Yes, it's a nudge or seeding. In most cases, it gets overridden by the data and it doesn’t matter what prior you use. But it's problematic in climate science - there isn't much data: we only have one climate. And the data is very noisy. Because of that, the PRIOR has a huge influence.

In an ideal world they would not use either Uniform or Expert Priors. They would either use an Objective Bayesian method, or they would use an non-Bayesian method, such as more classical statistical method like profile likelihood. Profile likelihood and objective Bayesian give almost the same results, although it’s not 100 per cent accurate.

The Uniform Prior hugely fastens the tail, even for a quite well defined estimate - Gregory.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/06 ... as/?page=3

[Super Nova]

Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL - in the short term

Posted on January 12, 2014 by Guest Blogger

Guest essay by Dr. Ira Glickstein

We’ve reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in the coming decades unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/g ... ig-deal-2/