PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change in the Coloradan Mind


W*GS
09-05-2013, 12:06 PM
Climate Change in the Coloradan Mind (http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/climate-change-in-the-coloradan-mind)

Highlights:

Most Coloradans (70%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few—only 19%— believe it is not.
Nearly half (48%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities.
Coloradans think global warming is important and are worried about it. Three in four (73%) say the issue of global warming is very or somewhat important to them personally. And six in ten (59%) are at least somewhat worried about it.
Among those who believe global warming is happening, 70% believe it is currently contributing to increased droughts and decreased snowpack, and 66% believe it is exacerbating wildfires.
About half of Coloradans (48%) say they have personally experienced global warming’s effects.
More than half of Coloradans say that more should be done about global warming at all levels of government—from President Obama and Congress, to Governor Hickenlooper and the state legislature, to local government officials. However, even larger numbers of Coloradans believe that corporations and industry (67%) and citizens themselves (66%) should be doing more to address climate change.
Half of Coloradans (52%) say that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy sources would increase economic growth and the number of jobs.

Pony Boy
09-05-2013, 01:01 PM
Climate Change in the Coloradan Mind (http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/climate-change-in-the-coloradan-mind)

Highlights:


53% of Coloradans voted to for the Legalization of Marijuana

Most Coloradans (70%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few—only 19%— believe it is not.
Nearly half (48%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities.
Coloradans think global warming is important and are worried about it. Three in four (73%) say the issue of global warming is very or somewhat important to them personally. And six in ten (59%) are at least somewhat worried about it.
Among those who believe global warming is happening, 70% believe it is currently contributing to increased droughts and decreased snowpack, and 66% believe it is exacerbating wildfires.
About half of Coloradans (48%) say they have personally experienced global warming’s effects.
More than half of Coloradans say that more should be done about global warming at all levels of government—from President Obama and Congress, to Governor Hickenlooper and the state legislature, to local government officials. However, even larger numbers of Coloradans believe that corporations and industry (67%) and citizens themselves (66%) should be doing more to address climate change.
Half of Coloradans (52%) say that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy sources would increase economic growth and the number of jobs.


Oops you forgot one!

Rohirrim
09-05-2013, 01:51 PM
Anybody who says the climate hasn't changed in Colorado hasn't been around very long. Thirty years ago I could almost set my clock by the weather. I always got tee times for golf at dawn in the Spring because you knew it would wash out by one in the afternoon with the afternoon showers. August would be too hot to golf. Fall would be the best. Perfect temperature. No wind. Now, we're having Spring weather in August. Windstorms in October. And Spring is completely impossible to predict. Not to mention the cloud formations which I've never seen in my life.

mhgaffney
09-05-2013, 04:51 PM
New Little Ice Age ‘to Begin in 2014′

http://iceagenow.info/2010/05/new-little-ice-age-to-begin-in-2014/

Arkie
09-05-2013, 05:37 PM
Anybody who says the climate hasn't changed in Colorado hasn't been around very long. Thirty years ago I could almost set my clock by the weather. I always got tee times for golf at dawn in the Spring because you knew it would wash out by one in the afternoon with the afternoon showers. August would be too hot to golf. Fall would be the best. Perfect temperature. No wind. Now, we're having Spring weather in August. Windstorms in October. And Spring is completely impossible to predict. Not to mention the cloud formations which I've never seen in my life.

The 2013 NFL season has just been delayed 15 minutes due to climate change! :cuss:

Rohirrim
09-05-2013, 07:04 PM
The 2013 NFL season has just been delayed 15 minutes due to climate change! :cuss:

:spit:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-05-2013, 10:19 PM
Oops you forgot one!

We can always count on you to represent the small minority of idiots who are invariably on the wrong side of the issue.

W*GS
09-06-2013, 06:06 AM
New Little Ice Age ‘to Begin in 2014′

Bull****.

Pony Boy
09-06-2013, 09:44 AM
We can always count on you to represent the small minority of idiots who are invariably on the wrong side of the issue.

What .... you couldn't find a cartoon to make your worthless point ...LOL

Requiem
09-06-2013, 01:54 PM
We can always count on you to represent the small minority of idiots who are invariably on the wrong side of the issue.

You got it, L.A. -- always.

barryr
09-08-2013, 04:43 PM
LOL, the Obama supporters can always go back to their usual subjects when things aren't going well for their messiah: gays marriage, abortion, religion, or global warming. Only now looks like it's shifting to being called "Global Cooling" again, so it changes depending on convenience of course LOL

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

W*GS
09-08-2013, 07:56 PM
LOL, the Obama supporters can always go back to their usual subjects when things aren't going well for their messiah: gays marriage, abortion, religion, or global warming. Only now looks like it's shifting to being called "Global Cooling" again, so it changes depending on convenience of course LOL

David Rose is more faeces than faeces are.

But of course you love him and the stench that accompanies him.

And:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot.png

W*GS
09-08-2013, 08:45 PM
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions?CMP=twt_gu)

Read it and choke, barryr.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-10-2013, 07:41 AM
https://sphotos-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1231638_662383790449302_182775430_n.jpg

Except for climate science, then: "fixed ideas", "No peer review", "Select only favourable discoveries", "Sees criticism as 'Conspiracy'", "non-repeatable results", "claims of widespeard usefulness", "Ballpark measurements", are ok. LOL

W*GS
09-10-2013, 08:23 AM
Except for climate science, then: "fixed ideas", "No peer review", "Select only favourable discoveries", "Sees criticism as 'Conspiracy'", "non-repeatable results", "claims of widespeard usefulness", "Ballpark measurements", are ok. LOL

Yeah, right.

Provide evidence that anthropogenic influence isn't necessary to explain the state of, and the trends in, the climate system.

Perhaps you can tell me how Lindzen's claim for very low ECS can be reconciled with the paleoclimate record.

Ideas?

Rohirrim
09-10-2013, 11:14 AM
Except for climate science, then: "fixed ideas", "No peer review", "Select only favourable discoveries", "Sees criticism as 'Conspiracy'", "non-repeatable results", "claims of widespeard usefulness", "Ballpark measurements", are ok. LOL


http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/Temp_anomaly.jpg

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. (NASA, NOAA, Japanese Meteorological Agency, etc.)
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

APS emblem
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." (2007)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

LOL

Dumbass

W*GS
09-10-2013, 11:41 AM
Dumbass

That's an entirely redundant term used in reference to UHW/S.

Pony Boy
09-10-2013, 12:06 PM
91 thousand Degrees ……This Woman explains the effects of Global Warming.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a6tKJvWWDP4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BroncoBeavis
09-10-2013, 12:26 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/Temp_anomaly.jpg

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. (NASA, NOAA, Japanese Meteorological Agency, etc.)
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

APS emblem
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." (2007)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

LOL

Dumbass

To be fair, you did just post the American Medical Association's position statement on Climate Changiness.

Frankly I'm disappointed the American Dental Association hasn't weighed in. :)

Rohirrim
09-10-2013, 12:31 PM
To be fair, you did just post the American Medical Association's position statement on Climate Changiness.

Frankly I'm disappointed the American Dental Association hasn't weighed in. :)

You're a dumbass too.

W*GS
09-10-2013, 01:04 PM
Perhaps BroncoBeavis would prefer the position statement of the Geological Society of America - you know, the association to which many petroleum geologists belong.

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

Rohirrim
09-10-2013, 01:13 PM
I guess he thinks climate change isn't also a medical issue, or perhaps he thinks doctors aren't scientists? Hard to imagine what goes through a trog's skull.

Requiem
09-10-2013, 01:37 PM
I gave up on Contrarian (Beavis) a long time ago.

BroncoBeavis
09-10-2013, 01:57 PM
Perhaps BroncoBeavis would prefer the position statement of the Geological Society of America - you know, the association to which many petroleum geologists belong.



http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

I'll just ride my man Hansen's 2008 prediction that in 5-10 years there would be no more Summer sea ice.

He is officially on the clock. :)

BroncoBeavis
09-10-2013, 02:00 PM
I guess he thinks climate change isn't also a medical issue, or perhaps he thinks doctors aren't scientists? Hard to imagine what goes through a trog's skull.

Well, "Medical Issue" is a stretch, yet, irrelevant. If it makes you feel better to stretch a climatalogical "consensus" around what your proctologist thinks, be my guest. :)

Rohirrim
09-10-2013, 03:32 PM
Well, "Medical Issue" is a stretch, yet, irrelevant. If it makes you feel better to stretch a climatalogical "consensus" around what your proctologist thinks, be my guest. :)

You pick out one and ignore the other ten. Why? Clueless buffoon.

W*GS
09-10-2013, 04:08 PM
Arctic sea ice as viewed by deniers...

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif

BroncoBeavis
09-10-2013, 04:54 PM
You pick out one and ignore the other ten. Why? Clueless buffoon.

To highlight that the prevailing selection bias will allow you to call almost anyone a consensus "scientist" so long as they're in line with your thinking.

I mean, if the American Veterinary Medical Association issued a statement denying Climate Truthiness, would you consider that a strike against "consensus" or would you just laugh it off?

Wait, I think I know the answer.

chadta
09-10-2013, 05:45 PM
Arctic sea ice as viewed by deniers...

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif


data since 1980 eh ?

Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.

Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.

houghtam
09-10-2013, 07:09 PM
I gave up on Contrarian (Beavis) a long time ago.

This.

He's not worth the time.

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 07:21 AM
data since 1980 eh ?

Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.

Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.

This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.

They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"

Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.

The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts. As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.

Rohirrim
09-11-2013, 07:41 AM
This.

He's not worth the time.

I find it remarkable, the capacity these right wingers have for ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions. As Spock would have said, "Fascinating." ;D

W*GS
09-11-2013, 08:24 AM
data since 1980 eh ?

The era of satellite observations.

Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.

There are no indications that such a claim is supported by the evidence.

Do you have observations to support your hypothesis?

Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.

No.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg
Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870-2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009-2011 (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/), (blue), with a fourth order polynomial fit (black solid line).

W*GS
09-11-2013, 08:49 AM
This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.

You've got it exactly backwards. It's the deniers who draw straight lines from one point to another, carefully cherry-picked to make their best "argument", and ignore all the rest of the data.

They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"

No. AGW is more than just "the surface is warmer". There are many kinds of observations and many lines of evidence that point directly at our burning of fossil fuels as the cause of the changes we're observing.

If our use of fossil fuels had very little impact on the climate system, we wouldn't be observing ocean acidification (as we are), cooling in the upper part of the atmosphere (which we are) and the various other changes.

You're basically trying to claim that climate science has gotten it entirely wrong over the last 100 years. That's a very extraordinary claim (on par with the idea that the earth is really flat or that evolution is entirely wrong) and requires extraordinary evidence. So far, the deniers have provided absolutely no evidence for their claims. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.

Wrong. Outside of the random impact or mega-eruption, global climate has never changed with the scale and rapidity we've observed in the history of our species, and for much longer periods than even that.

CO2 has not been at 400ppm for at least 800,000 years, likely at least 3 million years. We've increased it ~40% in under 200 years.

The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

If it wasn't for us, the planet would be cooling. We're overwhelming the natural forcings.

Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts.

That's a statement of faith, unsupported by the evidence and observations.

There's no reason to believe that suddenly all the metrics by which we observe anthropogenic climate change to reverse themselves. Again, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.

Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 08:50 AM
I find it remarkable, the capacity these right wingers have for ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions. As Spock would have said, "Fascinating." ;D

You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/27/michael-manns-hissy-fit-shows-why-global-warming-alarmists-fear-debate/

houghtam
09-11-2013, 09:04 AM
You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/27/michael-manns-hissy-fit-shows-why-global-warming-alarmists-fear-debate/

"Why alarmists fear debate..."

A statement posted by someone who has repeatedly said he doesn't like graphs and charts, hyperlinks, anecdotes and anything else that goes against his line of thinking, which he conveniently can never really back up on his own.

Excuse me while I :spit:

You're right, Roh..."Fascinating."

Rohirrim
09-11-2013, 09:59 AM
http://www.gifmania.co.uk/Star-Trek/spock/spock.gif#spock%20gif

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 10:01 AM
Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-06-23-globalwarming_N.htm

Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

Written 6/23/2008

But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.

Rohirrim
09-11-2013, 10:05 AM
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-06-23-globalwarming_N.htm



Written 6/23/2008

But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

W*GS
09-11-2013, 10:13 AM
You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/27/michael-manns-hissy-fit-shows-why-global-warming-alarmists-fear-debate/

A personal attack on Mike Mann by a Forbes op-ed writer who's a Heartland hit-man?

That all you got?

The debate is in the journals. So far, the deniers are batting about .002 in that regard.

W*GS
09-11-2013, 10:17 AM
But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

"Historically average"?

What dope you smokin'? Almost 2 sigma below the long-term mean ain't "historically average".

I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.

Does it really matter if Hansen is wrong about 2018 but is correct in 2021? Or 2026? Or 2029?

Does that mean all of climate science is utter crap? Please, explain.

houghtam
09-11-2013, 10:22 AM
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Argument by hyperlink!

Your argument is invalid!

LOL

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 10:36 AM
A personal attack on Mike Mann by a Forbes op-ed writer who's a Heartland hit-man?

That all you got?

The debate is in the journals. So far, the deniers are batting about .002 in that regard.

Lolz. Everyone not in Climate Club is a 'denier' or 'hit-man'

Yet even your gynecologist is welcome in Climate Club so long as they Uphold the Credo. LOL

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 10:38 AM
"Historically average"?

What dope you smokin'? Almost 2 sigma below the long-term mean ain't "historically average".

So long as you define "long term" as "since the 1970s" LOL

Guess you guys are going to have to stop blaming Reagan for things. I mean he was basically only President at the dawn of time. LOL

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 10:49 AM
Does it really matter if Hansen is wrong about 2018 but is correct in 2021? Or 2026? Or 2029?

I Concur

-Harold Camping

Does that mean all of climate science is utter crap? Please, explain.

No. As I've explained before. It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap. The fact that so many worship under the high priests of that very practice only underscores the unfortunate prevalence.

Rohirrim
09-11-2013, 11:12 AM
-Harold Camping



No. As I've explained before. It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap. The fact that so many worship under the high priests of that very practice only underscores the unfortunate prevalence.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

W*GS
09-11-2013, 11:53 AM
Lolz. Everyone not in Climate Club is a 'denier' or 'hit-man'

Taylor is. That's his job. FUD.

W*GS
09-11-2013, 11:57 AM
It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap.

Scientists should strictly stick to science and STFU about everything else, especially political issues?

Since when does being a scientist mean losing one's 1st Amendment rights?

W*GS
09-11-2013, 12:01 PM
So long as you define "long term" as "since the 1970s"

Again, since you missed it the first time:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 12:03 PM
Scientists should strictly stick to science and STFU about everything else, especially political issues?

Since when does being a scientist mean losing one's 1st Amendment rights?

It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.

If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.

W*GS
09-11-2013, 12:51 PM
It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.

What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.

If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.

So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.

houghtam
09-11-2013, 12:56 PM
What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.



So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.

By that logic, the medical examiner who testified for the defense in the Zimmerman trial was an activist.

Ha!

I love how Beavis continually gets in arguments with people who work in the field and thinks he has a leg to stand on. He's a jackass of all trades, but a master of none.

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 03:25 PM
What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.

Would you consider it your position that the Government-funded anti-smoking lobby never engages in hype or exaggeration?

Similar to many public debates, you had the Tobacco lobby 'scientists' telling the public that 1 pack a day was A-OK. And you had the government-funded grievance machine telling the public that they had to ban smoking virtually everywhere, because if some hapless wanderer accidentally tripped through a puff of smoke, it would take years from his life.

In reality, right in line with common sense, the truth was (and is) somewhere in between.

Rohirrim
09-11-2013, 03:37 PM
Would you consider it your position that the Government-funded anti-smoking lobby never engages in hype or exaggeration?

Similar to many public debates, you had the Tobacco lobby 'scientists' telling the public that 1 pack a day was A-OK. And you had the government-funded grievance machine telling the public that they had to ban smoking virtually everywhere, because if some hapless wanderer accidentally tripped through a puff of smoke, it would take years from his life.

In reality, right in line with common sense, the truth was (and is) somewhere in between.

Have you seen this site from NASA?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

It's all about scientific consensus. Check it out.

BroncoBeavis
09-11-2013, 03:50 PM
Have you seen this site from NASA?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

It's all about scientific consensus. Check it out.

So is this.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree

Check it out. :)

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2013, 07:59 AM
7 inches of Global Warming this week with no end in sight (literally) today.

Rohirrim
09-12-2013, 07:59 AM
Yeah. Springtime in September. Sweet!

Pony Boy
09-12-2013, 09:35 AM
7 inches of Global Warming this week with no end in sight (literally) today.

Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

W*GS
09-12-2013, 09:39 AM
Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

Who are these "many" making the link?

Pony Boy
09-12-2013, 11:06 AM
Who are these "many" making the link?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Farticle%2Fkille r-fire-to-killer-flood-colorado-s-one-two-climate-punch

W*GS
09-12-2013, 11:42 AM
[...]

One news story from a journalist counts as "many"?

Rohirrim
09-12-2013, 01:19 PM
Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

The Big Thompson flood was in July when it is normal (or always had been) to get the heavier rains (May is the heaviest). We're in mid-September, which normally has one of the lowest precipitation averages.

Rigs11
09-12-2013, 01:28 PM
The Big Thompson flood was in July when it is normal (or always had been) to get the heavier rains (May is the heaviest). We're in mid-September, which normally has one of the lowest precipitation averages.

Rightard: "what global warming? It's flooding...derp"Ha!

houghtam
09-12-2013, 01:44 PM
And two more conservatives demonstrate their mastery of the concept of climate vs. weather.

You guys should teach a class.

LOL

BroncoBeavis
09-12-2013, 01:55 PM
And two more conservatives demonstrate their mastery of the concept of climate vs. weather.

You guys should teach a class.

LOL

You do realize you kiddies blame just about every kind of bad anything on Global Warmins.

Drought. Heavy Rains. Snow. Lack of Snow. Wildfire. Floods. It's all been laid at the feet of the Warmins by Scientological Apocalysts at one time or another.

houghtam
09-12-2013, 02:04 PM
You do realize you kiddies blame just about every kind of bad anything on Global Warmins.

Drought. Heavy Rains. Snow. Lack of Snow. Wildfire. Floods. It's all been laid at the feet of the Warmins by Scientological Apocalysts at one time or another.

No.

When there are trends, however, people tend to say those things.

You guys, on the other hand, are captains of the "NURRRR It's 70 in July...where's da global warming, guys? NURRRR" club.

:welcome:

Rohirrim
09-12-2013, 02:07 PM
You do realize you kiddies blame just about every kind of bad anything on Global Warmins.

Drought. Heavy Rains. Snow. Lack of Snow. Wildfire. Floods. It's all been laid at the feet of the Warmins by Scientological Apocalysts at one time or another.

You do realize you simply ignore what doesn't fit your agenda.

BroncoBeavis
09-12-2013, 02:25 PM
No.

When there are trends, however, people tend to say those things.

You guys, on the other hand, are captains of the "NURRRR It's 70 in July...where's da global warming, guys? NURRRR" club.

:welcome:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-4.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-heavy-rain-flooding-0540.html

Please, go on.

W*GS
09-12-2013, 02:30 PM
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-4.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-heavy-rain-flooding-0540.html

Please, go on.

Changes in climate can impact weather events.

You just learned something. If it sank in.

houghtam
09-12-2013, 02:39 PM
And once again, Beavis demonstrates why he's a lost cause.

How many times do you have to post an article without reading it before you just give up?

BroncoBeavis
09-12-2013, 03:41 PM
Just highlighting how virtually any natural event anywhere can feed this perfect circle of confirmation bias you guys have built for yourself.

houghtam
09-12-2013, 03:47 PM
Just highlighting how virtually any natural event anywhere can feed this perfect circle of confirmation bias you guys have built for yourself.

No, you highlighted how you are talking out of your ass and have no real understanding of the issue, just like you have so many times.

Congrats, Beavis.

You're the new cutthemdown.

ROFL!

BroncoBeavis
09-12-2013, 03:58 PM
No, you highlighted how you are talking out of your ass and have no real understanding of the issue, just like you have so many times.

Congrats, Beavis.

You're the new cutthemdown.

ROFL!

Coming from The Quintessential Asstalking Virtuoso, that really means something.

To somebody.
Somewhere.
Maybe. :)

Rohirrim
09-12-2013, 03:59 PM
No, you highlighted how you are talking out of your ass and have no real understanding of the issue, just like you have so many times.

Congrats, Beavis.

You're the new cutthemdown.

ROFL!

Beavis' argument is that the sheer volume of signs leading to the confirmation of AGW is proof that it can't be true.

BroncoBeavis
09-12-2013, 04:03 PM
Beavis' argument is that the sheer volume of signs leading to the confirmation of AGW is proof that it can't be true.

It's not the sheer volume of signs that indicates a problem. It's the number of places alarmists keep looking for signs.

If your search for global climate truth lands you looking around a certain town or state with some flooding, you're not really looking for truth in the first place.

Rohirrim
09-12-2013, 04:10 PM
Uhh
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/us-weather-report-2013-deadly-flash-floods-staggering-19912946

And this was before Colorado.

100 year floods every year.

houghtam
09-12-2013, 04:39 PM
Coming from The Quintessential Asstalking Virtuoso, that really means something.

To somebody.
Somewhere.
Maybe. :)

Asstalking?

LOL

Tell us again how the bible is just as reliable as archaeological records.

You have proven time and again, and again today, that you are an idiot.

Enjoy your evening, cutthemdown!

BroncoBeavis
09-12-2013, 10:11 PM
Asstalking?

LOL

Tell us again how the bible is just as reliable as archaeological records.

You have proven time and again, and again today, that you are an idiot.

Enjoy your evening, cutthemdown!

Wasn't aware archaeology ever came up. Manuscript historicity maybe. But I guess in some circles, old stuff is just old stuff. :)

Meck77
09-16-2013, 11:09 AM
Global cooling?

http://www.snowaddiction.org/2013/09/and-now-its-global-cooling-record-return-of-arctic-ice-cap-as-it-grows-by-60-in-a-year.html

W*GS
09-16-2013, 12:23 PM
Global cooling?

http://www.snowaddiction.org/2013/09/and-now-its-global-cooling-record-return-of-arctic-ice-cap-as-it-grows-by-60-in-a-year.html

NTSA.

Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions)

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-21-2013, 04:56 PM
https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1238855_668644076489940_1063082750_n.jpg

W*GS
09-21-2013, 05:08 PM
http://reasonableconversation.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/asimov-cult-of-ignorance.jpg

houghtam
09-21-2013, 05:17 PM
http://reasonableconversation.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/asimov-cult-of-ignorance.jpg

I disagree with Asimov here.

It's not ignorance, it's cognitive dissonance.

The people involved (I'm talking more the Beavises than the UltimateDumbassW/Keyboards) are smart enough to know what the science indicates. They're just too entrenched in their politics and their way of life to want to change anything. Their taxes might go up, so they build a wall which is anchored in the tiny sliver of research that supports their position, and then complain about consensus.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-22-2013, 08:45 PM
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1236018_236714673150036_675637947_n.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2013, 01:50 AM
The gold standard for blaming a natural disaster on "sinners" was formerly held by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

But now Colorado pastor and radio talk show host Kevin Swanson is a contender in the pantheon of blame-game flame-throwers.

https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/y4/r/-PAXP-deijE.gif
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/images/2013.9.23.BF.Berkowitz.jpg



https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/y4/r/-PAXP-deijE.gif (http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18209-decadent-homosexual-activity-marijuana-and-abortion-caused-colorado-floods-talk-radio-minister-charges-denying-global-warming)"Decadent Homosexual Activity," Marijuana and Abortion Caused Colorado Floods, Claims Talk Radio Host


(http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18209-decadent-homosexual-activity-marijuana-and-abortion-caused-colorado-floods-talk-radio-minister-charges-denying-global-warming)

barryr
09-28-2013, 07:39 AM
Gee, what a huge hurricane season we're having as predicted by the global warmers. Oh, I mean global coolers. No wait, climate changers. Expect a ton of them, as predicted as before with little results. Their stories change all the time, as they do their excuses, but they are the experts though LOL

houghtam
09-28-2013, 08:08 AM
Gee, what a huge hurricane season we're having as predicted by the global warmers. Oh, I mean global coolers. No wait, climate changers. Expect a ton of them, as predicted as before with little results. Their stories change all the time, as they do their excuses, but they are the experts though LOL

Drive-by Barry, at it again!

Missed ya, bud!

HUGS!

Hilarious!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-09-2013, 07:11 PM
Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction


If you were standing outdoors looking at the distant and reddening sky 250 million years ago as the Permian Mass Extinction was beginning, unless you were in the region that is known as Siberia you would have no idea that a tipping point had just been passed and soon 95% of all life on earth would be dead.

It's almost impossible to identify tipping points, except in retrospect.

For example, we have almost certainly already past the tipping point to an ice-free Arctic. And we are just now realizing it, even though that tipping point was probably passed a decade or more ago.

This is critically important because in the history of our planet there have been five times when more than half of all life on Earth died. They're referred to as "mass extinctions."

One – the one that killed the dinosaurs – was initiated by a meteorite striking the Earth.

The rest all appear to have been initiated by tectonic and volcanic activity.

In each case, however, what happened was that massive amounts of carbon-containing greenhouse gases – principally carbon dioxide, were released from beneath the Earth's crust and up into the atmosphere.

This provoked global warming intense enough to melt billions of tons of frozen methane on the oceans floors. That pulse of methane - an intense greenhouse gas - then brought the extinction to its full of intensity.

While in the past it took continental movement or an asteroid to break up the crust of the earth enough to release ancient stores of carbon into the atmosphere, we humans have been doing this very aggressively for the past 150 years by drilling and mining fossil fuels.

So the question:

Will several centuries of burning fossil fuels release enough carbon into the atmosphere to mimic the effects of past volcanic and asteroid activity and provoke a mass extinction?

Geologists who study mass extinctions are becoming concerned. As more and more research is coming out about the massive stores of methane in the Arctic and around continental shelves, climate scientists are beginning to take notice, too.

The fossil fuel companies are sitting on roughly 2 trillion tons of underground carbon. That, in and of itself, is enough to warm the earth by 5 or 6°C, and is an amount of carbon consistent with tipping points during past mass extinctions. There are an additional estimated 2 trillion tons of methane stored in the Arctic and probably 2 to 5 times that much around continental shelves all around the Earth.

If our burning fossil fuels warms the oceans enough that that methane melts and is quickly released into the atmosphere, the Earth will be in its sixth mass extinction. And make no mistake about it, the animals and plants that are most heavily hit by mass extinctions are those that are largest and at the top of the food chain.

That means us.

We must stop the carbon madness and move, worldwide, to renewable 21st century energy sources.

This is why we’ve produced a short documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw) on this topic, and a short e-book (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Hours-Humanity-Extinction-ebook/dp/B00ET8B0OE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381250494&sr=1-1&keywords=last+hours+of+humanity) title “The Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction” that you can find at www.lasthours.org (http://lasthours.org/).

Please check it out and share it with as many friends as possible.

The future of humanity is at stake.


http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2013/10/last-hours-humanity-warming-world-extinction