Global Warming Scientists???

You seem to be confusing climate with weather. Checking a good scientific dictionary before posting, might have been in order. :cool:

The point was neither climate nor weather....it was the so-called scientists who predict the horrors of 'global warming.'

Over 7 billion in damage. Over 40 dead. But just a minor storm.

Horrors of global warming? What has been stated is that the warming will create unstable weather, weather that will cost us more, and make agriculture dicey even as the earth's population exceeds 7 billion.

Very simply, the primary prediction concerning weather from global warming is that the swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend.

Rocks, you folks who are still mesmerized by the global warming scam are akin to the Wicked Witch when Dorothy threw the water on her.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8]Wicked Witch Melting - YouTube[/ame]


Now keep practicing..."Look what you've done, my world, my world...."


See ya'....
 
Al20Gore20_20Green20Witch20Melting_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg
 
You seem to be confusing climate with weather. Checking a good scientific dictionary before posting, might have been in order. :cool:

The point was neither climate nor weather....it was the so-called scientists who predict the horrors of 'global warming.'

Over 7 billion in damage. Over 40 dead. But just a minor storm.

Horrors of global warming? What has been stated is that the warming will create unstable weather, weather that will cost us more, and make agriculture dicey even as the earth's population exceeds 7 billion.

Very simply, the primary prediction concerning weather from global warming is that the swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend.
What's been stated is that Goebbels warming will cause everything from acne to a zombie apocalypse.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4&feature=player_embedded]The Warm List - YouTube[/ame]

A complete list of things caused by global warming
 
The point was neither climate nor weather....it was the so-called scientists who predict the horrors of 'global warming.'

Over 7 billion in damage. Over 40 dead. But just a minor storm.

Horrors of global warming? What has been stated is that the warming will create unstable weather, weather that will cost us more, and make agriculture dicey even as the earth's population exceeds 7 billion.

Very simply, the primary prediction concerning weather from global warming is that the swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend.
What's been stated is that Goebbels warming will cause everything from acne to a zombie apocalypse.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4&feature=player_embedded]The Warm List - YouTube[/ame]

A complete list of things caused by global warming

I admit to addressing the list with but a cursory glance, but I'll bet it doesn't include the psychological boost swelling sense of pride it gives the empty-lives crowd.
 
Ah well, what to expect but idiocy in the responses of 'Consevatives'? AGW is a fact. And we are seeing the effects right now. This year has already set a record in insured losses in the US from weather, and it has four months yet to go.

Business News, Agriculture News | Agriculture.com

The forecast is gloomy for farm insurers this year as extreme weather threatens U.S. crops on several fronts, though the government may end up footing a chunk of the bill.
From drought-ravaged West Texas and Oklahoma cotton country to the flood-soaked cornfields in Tennessee, farmers are running out of time to plant these key crops. If they fail, insurers are obligated to pay policy holding-farmers for crop or revenue loss.

Insurers said they already factor some natural disasters into the premiums they charge farmers, even on the scale of this year's flooding or drought. But it is rare for so many severe weather events to occur in the same year, let alone at the same point in planting, and insurance companies may see losses as a result.

"These have been the worst two years as far as getting a crop in, in my 20 years of farming," said Jason Luckey, a cotton and grains farmer in Humboldt, Tenn., who has delayed cotton planting for the second straight year on his 1,350 acres after excessive rain has flooded his soil.

Insurance could cover up to 90% of his crops' value, which last year were worth $2.5 million, he said.

The February-April period was the driest on record for top cotton grower Texas, and the wettest for key corn producers Indiana and Ohio, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Government forecasters don't expect the weather to improve dramatically in either region.

"When you get multiple areas of the country where there's crop loss, that can lead to weaker underwriting results down the line," said Jim Auden, a managing director at the insurance industry analysis arm of FitchRatings. He added that "it's too early to tell" the extent of the damage.

Farm insurers will have to pay even more if bad harvests cut into already-thin supplies and push up prices for the crops, some of which--cotton and corn--touched record levels on futures markets this year. Policies and potential payouts carry a higher price to reflect the crops' value.

Most of the insurers' losses--however big they are--will be transferred to the government's balance sheet.

The U.S. is the biggest farm reinsurer, assuming 80% of the risk over the private insurance companies' 20%, providing a pool of cash for insurance companies to draw on when their losses exceed premiums.

The government also pays for a portion of farmers' insurance premiums
 
Ah well, what to expect but idiocy in the responses of 'Consevatives'? AGW is a fact. And we are seeing the effects right now. This year has already set a record in insured losses in the US from weather, and it has four months yet to go.

Business News, Agriculture News | Agriculture.com

The forecast is gloomy for farm insurers this year as extreme weather threatens U.S. crops on several fronts, though the government may end up footing a chunk of the bill.
From drought-ravaged West Texas and Oklahoma cotton country to the flood-soaked cornfields in Tennessee, farmers are running out of time to plant these key crops. If they fail, insurers are obligated to pay policy holding-farmers for crop or revenue loss.

Insurers said they already factor some natural disasters into the premiums they charge farmers, even on the scale of this year's flooding or drought. But it is rare for so many severe weather events to occur in the same year, let alone at the same point in planting, and insurance companies may see losses as a result.

"These have been the worst two years as far as getting a crop in, in my 20 years of farming," said Jason Luckey, a cotton and grains farmer in Humboldt, Tenn., who has delayed cotton planting for the second straight year on his 1,350 acres after excessive rain has flooded his soil.

Insurance could cover up to 90% of his crops' value, which last year were worth $2.5 million, he said.

The February-April period was the driest on record for top cotton grower Texas, and the wettest for key corn producers Indiana and Ohio, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Government forecasters don't expect the weather to improve dramatically in either region.

"When you get multiple areas of the country where there's crop loss, that can lead to weaker underwriting results down the line," said Jim Auden, a managing director at the insurance industry analysis arm of FitchRatings. He added that "it's too early to tell" the extent of the damage.

Farm insurers will have to pay even more if bad harvests cut into already-thin supplies and push up prices for the crops, some of which--cotton and corn--touched record levels on futures markets this year. Policies and potential payouts carry a higher price to reflect the crops' value.

Most of the insurers' losses--however big they are--will be transferred to the government's balance sheet.

The U.S. is the biggest farm reinsurer, assuming 80% of the risk over the private insurance companies' 20%, providing a pool of cash for insurance companies to draw on when their losses exceed premiums.

The government also pays for a portion of farmers' insurance premiums

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Those damn SUV's on Mars!
 
4. "It's A Bad Storm It's NOT A Lethal Storm! What Do These Guys In Washington Know That We Don't?" "It's A Bad Storm It's NOT A Lethal Storm! What Do These Guys In Washington Know That We Don't?" - YouTube

These are the folks in whom I should trust for global warming predictions???
They can't be trusted with predictons about tomorrow...but know all about the climate decades from now?
What the heck is the explanation???

Only one possibility! The 'scientists' who misled the nation about Hurricane Irene must be the 6% Republican scientiststhat Deanie keeps warning us about!
Wascully Wepublicans!
These bloodthirsty CON$ervative scumbags aren't happy with over 40 deaths from Irene. They wanted people to be unprepared for the flooding predicted from Irene so there would be a death toll matching Bush's failure with Katrina.

The scientists predicted heavy flood damage, and heavy flood damage happened. Based on those flood predictions people were evacuated from flood prone areas and loss of life was minimized. On that very video you hear Janet Naplitano warn of the flood potential for the already saturated ground while that scumbag Neil CaFathead push the GOP propaganda.

It was the worthless scum on FAUX who misled the nation about Irene and if the country followed their advice and did not prepare for the flooding predicted by the scientists, the storm would have reached the magnitude of lethality the GOP desired.
 
Ah well, what to expect but idiocy in the responses of 'Consevatives'? AGW is a fact. And we are seeing the effects right now. This year has already set a record in insured losses in the US from weather, and it has four months yet to go.

Business News, Agriculture News | Agriculture.com

The forecast is gloomy for farm insurers this year as extreme weather threatens U.S. crops on several fronts, though the government may end up footing a chunk of the bill.
From drought-ravaged West Texas and Oklahoma cotton country to the flood-soaked cornfields in Tennessee, farmers are running out of time to plant these key crops. If they fail, insurers are obligated to pay policy holding-farmers for crop or revenue loss.

Insurers said they already factor some natural disasters into the premiums they charge farmers, even on the scale of this year's flooding or drought. But it is rare for so many severe weather events to occur in the same year, let alone at the same point in planting, and insurance companies may see losses as a result.

"These have been the worst two years as far as getting a crop in, in my 20 years of farming," said Jason Luckey, a cotton and grains farmer in Humboldt, Tenn., who has delayed cotton planting for the second straight year on his 1,350 acres after excessive rain has flooded his soil.

Insurance could cover up to 90% of his crops' value, which last year were worth $2.5 million, he said.

The February-April period was the driest on record for top cotton grower Texas, and the wettest for key corn producers Indiana and Ohio, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Government forecasters don't expect the weather to improve dramatically in either region.

"When you get multiple areas of the country where there's crop loss, that can lead to weaker underwriting results down the line," said Jim Auden, a managing director at the insurance industry analysis arm of FitchRatings. He added that "it's too early to tell" the extent of the damage.

Farm insurers will have to pay even more if bad harvests cut into already-thin supplies and push up prices for the crops, some of which--cotton and corn--touched record levels on futures markets this year. Policies and potential payouts carry a higher price to reflect the crops' value.

Most of the insurers' losses--however big they are--will be transferred to the government's balance sheet.

The U.S. is the biggest farm reinsurer, assuming 80% of the risk over the private insurance companies' 20%, providing a pool of cash for insurance companies to draw on when their losses exceed premiums.

The government also pays for a portion of farmers' insurance premiums

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Those damn SUV's on Mars!
And now for the rest of the story;

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."


Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
Let's see, the Sun's irradiance is declining but Earth and Mars are warming, therefore the Sun causes warming! :cuckoo:
BRILLIANT! :cuckoo:

Deniers have been predicting global cooling in 15 to 20 years due to reduced solar irradiance since 2003, and yet the globe keeps warming. This present decade is the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement, but that will never stop deniers from saying the globe is cooling.
 
Ah well, what to expect but idiocy in the responses of 'Consevatives'? AGW is a fact. And we are seeing the effects right now. This year has already set a record in insured losses in the US from weather, and it has four months yet to go.

Business News, Agriculture News | Agriculture.com

The forecast is gloomy for farm insurers this year as extreme weather threatens U.S. crops on several fronts, though the government may end up footing a chunk of the bill.
From drought-ravaged West Texas and Oklahoma cotton country to the flood-soaked cornfields in Tennessee, farmers are running out of time to plant these key crops. If they fail, insurers are obligated to pay policy holding-farmers for crop or revenue loss.

Insurers said they already factor some natural disasters into the premiums they charge farmers, even on the scale of this year's flooding or drought. But it is rare for so many severe weather events to occur in the same year, let alone at the same point in planting, and insurance companies may see losses as a result.

"These have been the worst two years as far as getting a crop in, in my 20 years of farming," said Jason Luckey, a cotton and grains farmer in Humboldt, Tenn., who has delayed cotton planting for the second straight year on his 1,350 acres after excessive rain has flooded his soil.

Insurance could cover up to 90% of his crops' value, which last year were worth $2.5 million, he said.

The February-April period was the driest on record for top cotton grower Texas, and the wettest for key corn producers Indiana and Ohio, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Government forecasters don't expect the weather to improve dramatically in either region.

"When you get multiple areas of the country where there's crop loss, that can lead to weaker underwriting results down the line," said Jim Auden, a managing director at the insurance industry analysis arm of FitchRatings. He added that "it's too early to tell" the extent of the damage.

Farm insurers will have to pay even more if bad harvests cut into already-thin supplies and push up prices for the crops, some of which--cotton and corn--touched record levels on futures markets this year. Policies and potential payouts carry a higher price to reflect the crops' value.

Most of the insurers' losses--however big they are--will be transferred to the government's balance sheet.

The U.S. is the biggest farm reinsurer, assuming 80% of the risk over the private insurance companies' 20%, providing a pool of cash for insurance companies to draw on when their losses exceed premiums.

The government also pays for a portion of farmers' insurance premiums

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Those damn SUV's on Mars!
And now for the rest of the story;

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."


Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
Let's see, the Sun's irradiance is declining but Earth and Mars are warming, therefore the Sun causes warming! :cuckoo:
BRILLIANT! :cuckoo:

Deniers have been predicting global cooling in 15 to 20 years due to reduced solar irradiance since 2003, and yet the globe keeps warming. This present decade is the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement, but that will never stop deniers from saying the globe is cooling.

More BS from you on this huh? We already been down this road moron, and your inability to remember is tiresome. There is more to climate than just sunspots and the 11 year cycle, pretending you can use one thing and say here is my proof is as idiotic as the rest of your posts here...
 
You seem to be confusing climate with weather. Checking a good scientific dictionary before posting, might have been in order. :cool:

The point was neither climate nor weather....it was the so-called scientists who predict the horrors of 'global warming.'

Over 7 billion in damage. Over 40 dead. But just a minor storm.

Horrors of global warming? What has been stated is that the warming will create unstable weather, weather that will cost us more, and make agriculture dicey even as the earth's population exceeds 7 billion.

Very simply, the primary prediction concerning weather from global warming is that the swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend.
Why don't you say the victims are responsible for their plight because they voted Republican, like you did with the victims of the Midwest floods earlier this year?
 
The scientists with their feet most solidly on the ground, literally, are geologists. So what do the scientific societies of geologists state concerning AGW?

First, the Geological Society of America;


The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

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 large effects on humans and ecosystems if 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.

Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).

Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.

The American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change
WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

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. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

So continue to prattle on with your miserable 'Conservative' political ideology, but don't pretend that you actually have a clue concerning science or reality.
 
The scientists with their feet most solidly on the ground, literally, are geologists. So what do the scientific societies of geologists state concerning AGW?

First, the Geological Society of America;


The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

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 large effects on humans and ecosystems if 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.

Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).

Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.

The American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change
WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

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. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

So continue to prattle on with your miserable 'Conservative' political ideology, but don't pretend that you actually have a clue concerning science or reality.

"...but don't pretend that you actually have a clue concerning science or reality."


Aw, 'cmon...let me pretend....you know how much fun it is!

And, btw, have you seen the following from reviews of Dr. David Goodstein's book....he's the physicist who's made a study of cheating by scientists....

"On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science" [Hardcover]
David Goodstein

This was in one of the reviews...

"He does not mention climate science. I believe he misses a kind of constructive fraud we have come to see too often there: Withholding of data or methods, cherry-picking (sometimes valid, sometimes not valid) data to sell a result and claiming scientific validity for models, as opposed to observations….(And, as we now know, some of the leading climate modelers, like Stephen Schneider, claim not to even keep lab notebooks, which would seem to fit Goodstein's definition of fraud in reporting.)” Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science


Looks like we're both pretending, eh, Rocks?
 
I wish the MEDIA would get this right.

New York, PA, NJ are NOT in the Northeast.

They are MID-ATLANTIC states.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top