Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/

ONE small problem Mr Rajendra Pachauri the “long term” AGW attributed global warming started about 1981 and ended 1998. [17 years ]. 🤷
 
Nope!
Even the Met agrees that temps keep rising. The Met only said that the acceleration has decreased.
 
Decrease in acceleration *. Please read posts before posting! (post 162)
Temperatures continue to rise. That is what the Met said.
  • acceleration is defined as something going faster and faster. For example,suppose I am driving my car and accelerate to 55 miles per hour. However, I then maintain a constant 55 miles per hour. That does not mean that I am no longer moving forward.
    In the case of global temperatures, they continue to rise,but according to the Met they are not rising as fast. A decrease in acceleration does not mean a decrease in speed.
    Hope that made things clearer for you.
 
kimmielittle said:
Pretty vile 😦

I have never heard Mr Rush Limbaugh.
BUT I have heard YOUR attempt at activism disguised as science claims…AND I have politely asked you, many times, to support them.
Click to expand...
Your assignment is to read the IPCC AR4, WGI and WGII, but just be sure to use the number 2350 instead of 2035 on p. 193 of Ch. 10 Asia of WGII, since they made a mistake there, which a glaciologist (not a skeptic) caught after publication. Once you finish all that, after which I’m sure you will be convinced AGW is real and is projected to have very severe and harmful impacts, I’ll give you some more sources.

And yes I am an activist in that we’ve reduced our GHGs 60%+ below our 1990 emissions, saving us $1000s while increasing our living standards – not even counting that for the past 43 years we’ve made it a point to live within 1 or 2 miles of work so as to save resources for young people like you.

Love you! And may the Lord be blessed for all the help He so graciously provides in all good endeavors.
 
kimmielittle said:
NOTE The Holy Father did NOT claim AGW.
Click to expand...
He did NOT specify it is only natural climate change either. Many people use the more simple terms of “climate change,” “global warming,” or “the greenhouse effect” to mean anthropogenic climate change. I do it all the time.

If the Holy Father only meant "natural climate change, one is left wondering what the Vatican was thinking in striving to become “carbon neutral” by installing solar panels, etc., or why it put out the report, “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” – see casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/scriptavaria/glaciers.html

Nevertheless even if the the Holy Father or his successor were to specify and clarify that it is only natural climate change and not anthropogenic climate change, and that our only responsibility is to adapt to it and not mitigate it, I will continue to mitigate it and save money. In fact, even if the scientists were to reverse course and say anthropogenic climate change is not happening (because the greenhouse effect has been totally disproved) I will continue to mitigate it anyway, since doing so saves me so much money and helps mitigate many other environmental and other problems. Of course the whole of paleoclimatology will have to be rethought and re-written, as well as the laws of physics.

Others can make their own informed, fake-informed, or ill-informed decisions.
 
lynnvinc said:
He did NOT specify it is only natural climate change either. Many people use the more simple terms of “climate change,” “global warming,” or “the greenhouse effect” to mean anthropogenic climate change. I do it all the time.

If the Holy Father only meant "natural climate change, one is left wondering what the Vatican was thinking in striving to become “carbon neutral” by installing solar panels, etc., or why it put out the report, “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” – see casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/scriptavaria/glaciers.html…
Click to expand...
Another indication that the Holy Father means anthropogenic climate change (and not natural climate change) is his call for protection of the climate in several of his writings.

For example, “protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly…” see vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080418_un-visit_en.html

If he were simply calling for adaptation to natural climate change, he probably would have worded it differently, such as protection of the people from climate change, rather than protection of the climate.

The real point is denialist are willing to risk millions and billions of lives, for what???
 
lynnvinc said:
The real point is denialist are willing to risk millions and billions of lives, for what???
Click to expand...
For millions and billions of dollars. Part if this is due to the lack of scientific education that is being given to kids. When you have certain states willing to deny biology and teach creationism or when other school boards change history books to fit their incorrect view of history then you have a problem.

Anyone who would take a college level Biology class would understand the seriousness and the reality that is man made climate change.
 
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999
 
Man made global warming is a complete myth. Science does not support it. Too many have made a religion of this myth…I refuse to do so.
 
Paddy_Walker said:
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999
Click to expand...
By killing off the poor? Then making everyone else very poor? Perhaps causing people to fight over ever-diminishing life-sustaining resources like food & water in a vicious musical chairs to the death.
 
Yerusalyim said:
Man made global warming is a complete myth. Science does not support it. Too many have made a religion of this myth…I refuse to do so.
Click to expand...
Science is science – either you accept gravity, climate change, the laws of physics, or you reject them. However some scientific findings have moral implications, such as when it is found that PCBs harm and kill people. Then it behooves the community not to dump PCBs into their environment so that people ingest them (e.g. thru fish they eat) for moral reasons. I guess you do not have to believe in God to have a sense of morality and to stop dumping PCBs, but for those who claim to be Christian, there is a moral imperative to halt contributing to the willy nilly deaths of people out of carelessness, greed, or other motives.

Killing people, whether by abortion or contributing to climate change are just plain wrong. Now having an abortion is the greater wrong, no doubt, but killing people thru climate change is also wrong. And in my books denying what the scientist have found at a high level of certainty (90%, 95%), just because it’s “an inconvenient truth,” and going out telling others to reject the science and go on living a prodigal profligate life in pursuit of limitless luxuries – that is seems to be an extremely immoral act.
 
lynnvinc said:
By killing off the poor? Then making everyone else very poor? Perhaps causing people to fight over ever-diminishing life-sustaining resources like food & water in a vicious musical chairs to the death.
Click to expand...
were the poor killed off in the medeval warm period?

was everyone made poor?

during the medieval warm period people could grow grapes in england and american oysters and scallops were plentiful as far north as Sable Island, Nova Scotia *.

however during the little ice-age you had famine and disease.

http://www.green-agenda.com/images/mwp.gif*
 
lynnvinc said:
By killing off the poor? Then making everyone else very poor? Perhaps causing people to fight over ever-diminishing life-sustaining resources like food & water in a vicious musical chairs to the death.
Click to expand...
i wonder if this is what is really at the root of the global-warming hysterics.
dwindling fossil fuels, petrocarbons and ultimately loss of business and for consumers, loss of consumables as everything becomes too expensive.

but so what, let the fossil fuels and petrochemicals run out, so what.
none of it was necessary for life in the medieval warm period. these resources are going to run out anyway and by dragging out the inevitable you will just guarantee a period of prolonged suffering as most products become expensive but the marketing will increase to convince us we need to buy them.
we should return to a simpler way of life, wood fires, no long commutes, living and working in hamlets of clochans…

the sooner we use up our fossil fuels and resources the better, then there will be no economic discrimination, no huge heavy industries polluting the air and water. all people will be equal and relatively happy. ploughing their fields, growing their own food, travelling by horse, sailing instead of flying.

ah… welcome the day…!
 
BigBlueCane said:
For millions and billions of dollars. Part if this is due to the lack of scientific education that is being given to kids. When you have certain states willing to deny biology and teach creationism or when other school boards change history books to fit their incorrect view of history then you have a problem.

Anyone who would take a college level Biology class would understand the seriousness and the reality that is man made climate change.
Click to expand...
Can you show us how Biology works with CO2 ?

Biology says Life needs CO2.
Biology says Plants thrive on MORE CO2.

I’ll await your empirical biological evidence 🙂

And I’ll leave you with this scientific fact
You hypothesize a consequence from the premise of a theory to test an otherwise unknown phenomenon. Equally, climate models are not theories, they are nothing more than mathematical hypotheses. As such, none of these hypotheses have the gravitas of a theory, and therefore has no more weight that that of a considered opinion.
Click to expand...
In order to support a hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the hypothesis, and the predictions then need to either happen or be falsified. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a hypothesis, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the hypothesis is flawed or even wrong.
Click to expand...
Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example, weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions.
Click to expand...
However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some trends due to specific forcing factors, like any respectable hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to being reasonably valid.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t you first examine the AGW hypothesis - Does it hold up? Remember a hypothesis that fails in one point - FAILS ALL 🙂

climatephysics.com/weinstein-disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/
 
lynnvinc said:
Science is science –
Click to expand...
AND science demands empirical evidence to make a claim.

Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn’t stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans’ near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines,

Falsify these measurements. 🙂
You have to, in order to support the AGW hypothesis…NO ONE HAS!
 
lynnvinc said:
For example, “protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly…” see vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080418_un-visit_en.html
Click to expand...
Once again, you show your willingness to try and confuse IMO.

That report is on Black Soot…Not CO2 - AGW.
It was also done by the usual activists - As I have shown to you in the past.

Activist lose their Scientific credibility of being non biased.
 
wittgenstein said:
Decrease in acceleration *. Please read posts before posting! (post 162)
Temperatures continue to rise. That is what the Met said.
Click to expand...
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years.

The world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.

When one has to “move the goal posts” in their hypothesis - IT FAILS! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top