US, British science academies: Climate change is real

[ScienceRocks]

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.


The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.

"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.

"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."

The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.

But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.

Amid a bitter winter in several parts of the world, the academies stressed that global warming is a "long-term trend" and that day-to-day weather can still be unusually cold or warm.

IF IT IS SO FUCKING REAL...Why won't you prove it with math and real science so we warmers can successfully defend it? How about it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

JUST ONE OF THESE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE should have at least one scientist that can sit down and prove it to the skeptics. A proof that they're forced to accept.

 

[Kosh]

Climate change is real and it happens despite if humans are on the planet.

I have yet to see any skeptic deny that only AGW church propaganda claims otherwise.

And as always the AGW cultists point out the obvious with yet another failed thread of religious dogma.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since East Anglia was busted for fraud, was one of these Brit AGW Universities named West Anglia?

 

[ScienceRocks]

IF they're so utterly sure why won't they develop a webpage with all the math proving it. Fuck the little pictures of causes and effects.

Not working.

 

[flacaltenn]

JUST ONE OF THESE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE should have at least one scientist that can sit down and prove it to the skeptics. A proof that they're forced to accept.

You need to notice that they won't even PROJECT what the temp rise will be in 2100 anymore.
They are asserting that things are clearer and surer than EVER BEFORE -- but are less likely to stick out their necks and give policy makers REAL NUMBER AT ALL anymore..

THAT'S all you need to see here. It's bluster and they ADMIT when they say the "focus is on what we should DO about it".. They've lost the carefully crafted PR advantage and they DON'T WANT A DEBATE of any kind..

Unless we get a huge temp spike in this decade --- they are horse's asses.. The LOT of them.

 

[Kosh]

Good thing the Hockey stick is now a thing of the past.

 

[Abraham3]

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.


The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.

"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.

"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."

The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.

But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.

Amid a bitter winter in several parts of the world, the academies stressed that global warming is a "long-term trend" and that day-to-day weather can still be unusually cold or warm.

IF IT IS SO FUCKING REAL...Why won't you prove it with math and real science so we warmers can successfully defend it? How about it.

Matthew, there is an enormous amount of mathematics being used to demonstrate that the evidence supports AGW. The application of "real science" does nothing but find that AGW is real and ongoing and that global warming presents a real and significant threat to human well being.

Can I ask how much time you've spent reading AR5 or any of the previous reports? If you haven't, please give a look at Chapter 2, 3 and 4 of WG-I, the physical observations.http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uw_S2fldWSo Take some notes if you like. It will do you good.

And please don't let the people with whom we argue here make you doubt what rational thought and the application of proper logic and valid reason show to be correct. Their purpose is NOT to find the truth but simply to make you doubt what you already know to be the facts of the matter.

And, again, natural science does not involve the applications of PROOF. It involves evidence that establishes likelihoods. The evidence in support of AGW makes it extremely likely to be correct, but it does not PROVE it and never will. When someone like SSDD or Owl or a dozen other deniers demand proof or criticize natural scientists for having failed to prove this point or that, take comfort in the knowledge that such statements only demonstrate their lack of command of the topic's basics.

 

[Dot Com]

^ that

 

[flacaltenn]

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.


The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.

"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.

"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."

The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.

But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.

Amid a bitter winter in several parts of the world, the academies stressed that global warming is a "long-term trend" and that day-to-day weather can still be unusually cold or warm.

IF IT IS SO FUCKING REAL...Why won't you prove it with math and real science so we warmers can successfully defend it? How about it.

Matthew, there is an enormous amount of mathematics being used to demonstrate that the evidence supports AGW. The application of "real science" does nothing but find that AGW is real and ongoing and that global warming presents a real and significant threat to human well being.

Can I ask how much time you've spent reading AR5 or any of the previous reports? If you haven't, please give a look at Chapter 2, 3 and 4 of WG-I, the physical observations.IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Take some notes if you like. It will do you good.

And please don't let the people with whom we argue here make you doubt what rational thought and the application of proper logic and valid reason show to be correct. Their purpose is NOT to find the truth but simply to make you doubt what you already know to be the facts of the matter.

And, again, natural science does not involve the applications of PROOF. It involves evidence that establishes likelihoods. The evidence in support of AGW makes it extremely likely to be correct, but it does not PROVE it and never will. When someone like SSDD or Owl or a dozen other deniers demand proof or criticize natural scientists for having failed to prove this point or that, take comfort in the knowledge that such statements only demonstrate their lack of command of the topic's basics.

Nice play Bullwinkle. But thats not whats going on at all. You will no longer get likelihoods of what temp anomalies will be in 2040. You'll hardly get any "consensus" on that question at all. The days of shooting from the hip are over. Almost time for MY favorite part of failed projects --- the search for the guilty.

 

[Abraham3]

You will no longer get likelihoods of what temp anomalies will be in 2040.

1) What makes you think that is of any particular significance?
2) What makes you think continuously improving knowledge won't continuously improve the likelihood that our GCMs estimates of global temperature in 2040 - or any other year you care to pull out of your ass - are accurate to some arbitrary degree?

 

[Old Rocks]

In this paper by Dr. Hansen, you can find plenty of math, and some very accurate predictions.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Hansen1981_CO2_Impact.pdf

Within peer reviewed literature, you will find many papers with math. More important than that, however, is the fact that those papers made some predicitons. And they have been pretty damned good.

The denialists contantly deny the accuracy, deny the math, and generally lie about what the papers state. Walleyes has amply demonstrated that right here, where repeatedly he has said a paper said one thing, and has been proven completely wrong by quotes from the very articles he sites.

 

[flacaltenn]

You will no longer get likelihoods of what temp anomalies will be in 2040.

1) What makes you think that is of any particular significance?

You're joking right??? We're supposed to open our checkbooks and start writing checks for Climate mitigation based on "feelings" or generalizations about it getting warmer? Get off the planet Bullwinkle. Public policy expenditures of $TRILL of dollars REQUIRE accurate projections. They have failed with those of the past 20 years, and they are not making any more of those..

2) What makes you think continuously improving knowledge won't continuously improve the likelihood that our GCMs estimates of global temperature in 2040 - or any other year you care to pull out of your ass - are accurate to some arbitrary degree?

There was never an effort to refine GCMs to include the fundamental elements of the climate system.. No real advancements on understanding WHY ocean cycles behave as they do --- all we got was simple ass models starring a trace gas that was linked to Big Fossil Fuel.. Hell --- they are just NOW acknowledging that there is IMMENSE amount of storage of heat and cold in the climate system and starting to LOOK for excuses for their failures in places that SHOULD HAVE explored 20 years ago.

Hold your breath.. Don't exhale.. Maybe that will happen.. But this consensus shit is a hollow stinky carcass of what it was just 5 years ago..

 

[Mr. H.]

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US, British science academies: Climate change is real

US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.


The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.

"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.

"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."

The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.

But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.

Amid a bitter winter in several parts of the world, the academies stressed that global warming is a "long-term trend" and that day-to-day weather can still be unusually cold or warm.

IF IT IS SO FUCKING REAL...Why won't you prove it with math and real science so we warmers can successfully defend it? How about it.

Matthew, there is an enormous amount of mathematics being used to demonstrate that the evidence supports AGW. The application of "real science" does nothing but find that AGW is real and ongoing and that global warming presents a real and significant threat to human well being.

Can I ask how much time you've spent reading AR5 or any of the previous reports? If you haven't, please give a look at Chapter 2, 3 and 4 of WG-I, the physical observations.IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Take some notes if you like. It will do you good.

And please don't let the people with whom we argue here make you doubt what rational thought and the application of proper logic and valid reason show to be correct. Their purpose is NOT to find the truth but simply to make you doubt what you already know to be the facts of the matter.

And, again, natural science does not involve the applications of PROOF. It involves evidence that establishes likelihoods. The evidence in support of AGW makes it extremely likely to be correct, but it does not PROVE it and never will. When someone like SSDD or Owl or a dozen other deniers demand proof or criticize natural scientists for having failed to prove this point or that, take comfort in the knowledge that such statements only demonstrate their lack of command of the topic's basics.

A "real and significant threat to human well being" would be to put the hammer down on hydrocarbons at the cost of tens of trillions of dollars and tens of millions of jobs all for an inconsequential reduction in so-called "greenhouse gasses".

 

[flacaltenn]

But MR. H --- Kerry says GW is a certified Weapon of Mass Destruction.. He just doesn't have the temperature for 2046 figured out yet..

We're NOW just supposed to get a "feeling" that it's "a real and significant threat to human well being"..
Got a feeling the Court Case on EPA declaring CO2 emergencies will cover this ground and the EPA will be ASKED what the temperature will be 2040 if CO2 is not further regulated.

Hopefully, the justices aren't gonna accept "feelings" and will expect a clear and concise CONSENSUS answer..

 

[Dot Com]

You will no longer get likelihoods of what temp anomalies will be in 2040.

1) What makes you think that is of any particular significance?

You're joking right??? We're supposed to open our checkbooks and start writing checks for Climate mitigation based on "feelings" or generalizations about it getting warmer? Get off the planet Bullwinkle. Public policy expenditures of $TRILL of dollars REQUIRE accurate projections. They have failed with those of the past 20 years, and they are not making any more of those..

2) What makes you think continuously improving knowledge won't continuously improve the likelihood that our GCMs estimates of global temperature in 2040 - or any other year you care to pull out of your ass - are accurate to some arbitrary degree?

There was never an effort to refine GCMs to include the fundamental elements of the climate system.. No real advancements on understanding WHY ocean cycles behave as they do --- all we got was simple ass models starring a trace gas that was linked to Big Fossil Fuel.. Hell --- they are just NOW acknowledging that there is IMMENSE amount of storage of heat and cold in the climate system and starting to LOOK for excuses for their failures in places that SHOULD HAVE explored 20 years ago.

Hold your breath.. Don't exhale.. Maybe that will happen.. But this consensus shit is a hollow stinky carcass of what it was just 5 years ago..

link?

 

[Old Rocks]

In this months American Scientist, there is an article concerning the affects of the excess CO2 on the ocean, the acidification, and it's affects on various species. But our denialists are not interested in what real scientists have to say, their evidence, or observations. They prefer the alternative reality of obese junkies on the radio, undegreed ex-TV weathermen, and ignorant Teabaggers.