Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

seems the 97% "consensus" is anything but

as interviewd scientists assert Cook misrepresented their opinions

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

you guys need to do better than Cook. the guy is a hack and cannot be taken seriously. but i guess if he's the best you have you have to go with him, otherwise you'd trot out others like al gore or mann.

oh, wait, they're hacks too

[Vedubin01]

what about since 1997? Have we had global warming since then?

well according to Newsweek in 1975 it was Global Cooling that we had to worry about...

[gwb72tii]

what about since 1997? Have we had global warming since then?

how about from 8,000 BC?

bit i digress, because the last 15yrs is particularly important. it's during that time span that the AGW faithful "perdictd" their "consensus" that man is responsible, CO2 is the evil gas, and temps will continue to rise, which we now know to be false. Which also means the theory is wrong.

[DIIRTY-30]

I think I just found the most intelligent thread on r3v thus far...

[Morrison]

Humans produce some 35 giga-tons of CO2 every year. That's giga, meaning x 10^9 tons. So over just a 10 year period that'd be 350 giga-tons.

Volcanic activity is currently responsible for about .15 giga-tons annually, in comparison.

How anyone can just sit there and believe that all of that extra CO2 is just absorbed by trees, plankton, and grass is beyond me.

[Fusion]

Five or six regions, a thousand kilometres wide, were found in the Southern Ocean, where eddies associated with the effect of wind and prevailing ocean currents create funnels injecting carbon into the deep seas. One of the most intense is located directly south west of Australia; another is located in southern Chile. Improving our understanding of the mechanisms of carbon drawdown in the deep-seas, this research feeds into a scientific controversy born a few years ago: could the ocean ever stop absorbing CO2?

A study published in 2007 in Science suggested that intensification of the winds in the southern hemisphere due to human activity could reduce the effectiveness of carbon sinks. Indeed, by stirring deep layers with the surface water, intensifying winds could cause outgassing of buried carbon dioxide. Ultimately, the ocean would no longer play its role as a carbon sponge. The present study shows, however, that vortices counter-balance the effect of wind.

Is that good news for global warming? In principle yes, but it is yet not known what will be the effect of climate change on vortices. Hence the importance of integrating them into climate models to estimate their evolution and future impact on the climate. Vortices occur at scales too small compared to the grids of climate models currently being used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International modelling teams are already working to refine the resolution of climate models and ultimately better integrate the importance of eddy-processes for the next IPCC report.

On a similar note, one thing we may consider a "solution" may not actually be so straight forward...

We cannot afford to sanction the continued destruction of our remaining 'blue carbon' habitats merely to fast track wind farm development – warns MEP

The role played by forests and peat bogs in capturing and storing carbon is well-known. We call this 'green carbon'. But now, there is increasing awareness and attention being paid to the crucial role of our oceans and marine ecosystems in maintaining our climate. Around 55 per cent of all the biological carbon captured in the world is sequestered by marine living organisms in the sea. This is 'blue carbon'.

Every day, we add a further 22 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide to our oceans. That is why maintaining and improving the ability of our oceans to capture and store carbon is of vital importance to human survival. We can no longer afford to overlook the critical role of our oceans. Without the essential ecosystem service they provide, climate change would be far worse. Seagrass meadows also provide an important habitat for shellfish and finfish and help maintain biodiversity, water quality and prevent coastal erosion. Their presence and abundance is therefore a good measure of the environmental quality of the entire coastal zone.

Recent research has indicated that a tiny part of the marine environment – the mangrove swamps, salt marshes and seagrasses that cover just 0.5 per cent of the seabed – account for the capture of at least half, and maybe three-quarters, of this blue carbon. They are our blue carbon sinks and keeping them in good shape could be one of our most important undertakings to control climate change. While most mangrove swamps are in the tropics and subtropics, the United Kingdom possesses large areas of the other blue carbon stores with its seagrass meadows and salt marshes. Government agency Scottish National Heritage has noted that the vast majority of the UK's seagrass meadows are located in Scottish waters, accounting for some 20 per cent of Europe's total.

Groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Conservation have highlighted that seagrasses around Scotland are most likely to occur in very shallow coastal waters, probably less than five metres in depth, because of the relatively low water clarity of oceans at higher latitudes. So, while blue carbon experts have previously assumed that offshore turbine developments are built in deeper waters and away from the sandbanks where seagrasses thrive, it is now clear that this is not the case.

In the North Sea alone, operational wind farms have already been built in shallow waters. Lynn and Inner Dowsing Wind Farm has 54 turbines with a depth range of between six and 11 metres. The Gunfleet Sands Wind Farm has 48 turbines in a depth range of between two and five metres. Kentish Flats Wind Farm has 30 turbines in a depth range of between three and five metres and Scroby Sands Wind Farm has 30 turbines in a depth range of up to eight metres. Those are just a few examples of current operational wind farms in the North Sea. There are plenty more in operation, or planned, both there and in other coastal areas.

Offshore wind farms will also affect salt marshes. Saltmarshes are vegetated parts of the upper intertidal area found on our enclosed shores and Scottish saltmarshes make up 15 per cent of the total British resource. Scotland's largest areas of saltmarsh are located in two main areas: the Solway Firth and the Moray Firth. Yet, despite the importance of these natural resources, both locations are key locations for wind farm planners.

The Solway Firth is currently home to Robin Rigg wind farm, Scotland's first offshore wind development which was completed in April 2010. Solway Firth now houses 100 turbines in a depth range of between four and 23 metres within a 59 kilometre squared area, even though Scottish ministers agreed that "the Solway Firth and Wigtown Bay sites are unsuitable for the development of offshore wind and should not be progressed as part of this Sectoral Marine Plan".

At present, a number of developers are preparing applications to site huge wind farms in the Moray Firth development area as the Scottish Government has noted that the region "has favourable conditions and significant potential for the development of offshore wind both within Scottish territorial waters and beyond into Scottish offshore waters". The government does not mention either saltmarshes or seagrasses in its "sectoral marine plan for offshore wind energy in Scottish territorial waters', though they do note that there are potential adverse effects on bottlenose dolphins.

Despite its importance, blue carbon is still a relatively unknown issue. The message to policy-makers is clear - we cannot afford to sanction the continued destruction of our remaining blue carbon habitats merely to fast-track wind farm development. Blue carbon sinks are far more effective in the battle against climate change than turbines can ever be and it is time they received full protection.

*note: I do not necessarily agree with how some things are worded in the quoted text and thus it cannot be assumed I agree with it. This is just an example of how complicated the environment is and shows how some groups think they may be fixing a "problem", without realizing that they could be making it worse.

Out of frying pan into the fire

[gwb72tii]

Humans produce some 35 giga-tons of CO2 every year. That's giga, meaning x 10^9 tons. So over just a 10 year period that'd be 350 giga-tons.

Volcanic activity is currently responsible for about .15 giga-tons annually, in comparison.

How anyone can just sit there and believe that all of that extra CO2 is just absorbed by trees, plankton, and grass is beyond me.

it is widely accepted, in fact, there is a 97% consensus, that anthropogenic CO2 is roughly 4% of all CO2 annually

[gwb72tii]

and in fact, the AGW faithfull were all over global warming having paused (stopped) all the ay back in 2009

quote from Kevin Trenberth of lead IPCC fame

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

thank God for climategate

[Q5Quint]

how about from 8,000 BC?

bit i digress, because the last 15yrs is particularly important. it's during that time span that the AGW faithful "perdictd" their "consensus" that man is responsible, CO2 is the evil gas, and temps will continue to rise, which we now know to be false. Which also means the theory is wrong.

Contradiction. States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence.

Also bad science- 10-20 years is not enough to predict the temperature changes for the next 10-20 years. If the temps have been rising for 100 years why do the most recent 10 mean otherwise? If they have been rising the last 10,000 years on average, why would the last 10 years prove otherwise? Evidence for that? Or do you not actually have any evidence yet again?

as interviewd scientists assert Cook misrepresented their opinions

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

you guys need to do better than Cook. the guy is a hack and cannot be taken seriously. but i guess if he's the best you have you have to go with him, otherwise you'd trot out others like al gore or mann.

oh, wait, they're hacks too

.....Responding to tone, ad hominem, and name calling at the same time.

How about this- the 'author' of that un published or peer reviewed blog is a computer analyist. Does he even know how to read a physics paper on climate driving factors? Ad hominem.

He is obviously unqualified and his research means nothing because it isn't published anywhere but his own website. Tone.

This guy is also a huge idiot because in his interview with a scientist claiming that cooks paper was false..... he actually confirmed their belief in human caused global warming.

Quote from your website:

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

So now to respond to your posting that article- did you even read it? The guys evidence for 'global warming isnt real' is that the scientist he interviewed said that humans are responsible for half of global warming. Are you going to throw him out now, too?

it is widely accepted, in fact, there is a 97% consensus, that anthropogenic CO2 is roughly 4% of all CO2 annually

Right~ and that co2 is not reabsorbed every year, but stays in the atmosphere every year- hence why we are at 400ppm now.... a higher level of co2 than we have had for 400,000 years.

and in fact, the AGW faithfull were all over global warming having paused (stopped) all the ay back in 2009

quote from Kevin Trenberth of lead IPCC fame

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

thank God for climategate

You are quoting an email from Kevin to Mann back from 2009 and attempting to say that they made up some science facts- hence the climate gate. ad hominem again.

The issue is that climate gate never happened because the facts- the temperatures and atmospheric models- all predict the climate increasing temperature with the addition of co2.

Of course kevin is mad- a few cold years and all the skeptics start shouting 'climate change isnt real' just like you are doing now.


You still have yet to address the actual argument that co2 is a driving factor of global temperature.

Here is a nice video addressing how you are completely wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=u_0JZRIHFtk

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm

[cale]

it is widely accepted, in fact, there is a 97% consensus, that anthropogenic CO2 is roughly 4% of all CO2 annually

And care to explain how an accumulation of an additional 4% annually which cannot and is not absorbed by the biosphere affects our planet? You've only been asked this around a dozen or so times now, maybe it's time to actually expose your ignorance rather than playing dumb and moving on to another topic?

4%'s a little number, therefore it's irrelevant says gwb. Science, let the geriatric accountants tell you how it works.

[Fusion]

The study, led by CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ashley Ballantyne, looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning. The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon "sinks" that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth's climate.

[herbivor]

Oceans are the largest CO2 sink we have. Unfortunately as a result it is becoming more acidic and increasing in temperature at lower depths. This is causing serious problems for sea life and many changes have already occurred as a result. This website provides more info. Be sure not to read it or learn anything new. http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html

[rwh11385]

how about from 8,000 BC?

bit i digress, because the last 15yrs is particularly important. it's during that time span that the AGW faithful "perdictd" their "consensus" that man is responsible, CO2 is the evil gas, and temps will continue to rise, which we now know to be false. Which also means the theory is wrong.

What the heck is "perdictd"? And in the course of Earth history, how do you find 15 years a significant length of time? But moving on...

My mind is bageled by how incapable you are at realizing the logical fallacies in your simplistic view of this subject. Or the fact that you seem so thick-headed that you have not understood this after about 50 times explaining how dumb this conclusion of yours is. Your simplistic view of the subject is like denying that calories have an impact on weight because you know someone who doubled their daily intake and lost weight without considering if they started training for an Ironman Triathlon.

Answer these before ever repeating this flawed argument ever again:
Question 1 - Is it your assumption that CO2 is the ONLY factor in global temperature?
Question 2 - If question 1's answer is no, have all other variables held constant since 1998?
Question 3 - If it has been shown that light traveling through even a trace increase in CO2 increases energy absorbed by the gas/air mixture, how is it possible to ignore this additional energy or assume it 'disappears' in conventional 'denier science' when it is a widely understood law of science that energy cannot be created nor destroyed?

Climate change and the impact of CO2 help to explain the change in temperature while controlling for other climate inputs. It is not the single determiner of temperature. So why would simply looking at one input disprove its influence on the output? It is like you have zero comprehension of what a model is or how it works, yet choose to have an opinion about them. Generally, when people are as clueless as you, they should just not share their ignorance with others. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" — Abraham Lincoln

In case you really are senile and have simply forgot how many times you have repeated this flawed argument and forgot to respond to my reply, here's a link: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...postcount=1878

"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

Basic facts you seem to constantly ignore: the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting and energy cannot be destroyed and doesn't just "disappear". (Sometimes it is found deep under the sea)

And, even with the warm years in the past decade, the planet had cooling effects going on. Hansen has warned about what happens when those change to warming effects like El Nino or more solar activity.


You apparently didn't read this a page or so back:

And before you forget and repost the XX years without global warming bullshit again on the next page, tell us where the additional energy disappears to.

So instead of talking about 15 years (or randomly throwing in a 20 years), why don't you explain where the energy goes?

[Poptech]

How about this- the 'author' of that un published or peer reviewed blog is a computer analyist. Does he even know how to read a physics paper on climate driving factors?

Yes I do and the paper in question - Cook et al. (2013) is not a physics paper by any stretch of the imagination.

He is obviously unqualified and his research means nothing because it isn't published anywhere but his own website.

No special qualifications are required to ask scientists very basic questions regarding their papers classifications by Cook et al. (2013).

This guy is also a huge idiot because in his interview with a scientist claiming that cooks paper was false..... he actually confirmed their belief in human caused global warming.

This is incorrect and misleading. Dr. Scafetta explicitly stated, "might have" in his paper and then when asked for qualification stated that this at best represents low climate sensitivity of +1.5C. The Cook et al. (2013) team who are members of the website "Skeptical Science" and the IPCC do not support low climate sensitivity. Further research would reveal that Dr. Scafetta believes "imminent and catastrophic" AGW claims to be greatly exaggerated and that nature, not human activity, rules the climate. There are many skeptical scientists who support the existence of an anthropogenic contribution to climate but do not believe it to be a problem. To falsely categorizing such positions with those of the authors of Cook at al. (2013) and their media blitz, The Consensus Project is dishonest and misleading.

[Q5Quint]

What a great first post~ thank you for your reasoning and logic/punctuation skills.

In my argument validation (or rather, invalidation) post I was attempting to point out exactly what you have mentioned in your last paragraph-

1) That all scientists agree that the earth is warming naturally, hence the lack of 'global cooling' research.

2) There is a factor of how much human caused warming will raise temperatures above that which is naturally expected. Some scientists think this number is very low, some think it is very high.

I agree that the 'consensus project' is hyped in the way it classifies those studies, but with 'climate deniers' locking into blog posts and fox news instead of scientific papers as 'evidence' for their position..... can you really blame them?

Those facts, which we can agree on, shift the questions from:

'global warming is over' to 'how much natural global warming is predicted?'

'What factor above that 'natural' warming is human caused, and will there be any significant issues with that warming, human caused or natural, that we may want to address preventatively?'

http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResI...-pg-25_top.jpg

This is what the epa thinks- I would be curious to see any other graphs, especially one that can break down 'natural' vs 'human caused' driving factors of temperature increase. (link because that graph is ultra-huge).