That hoary chestnut of the 97% consensus again

See Mutt... the above highlights the brain trust on your fear mongering side of the AGW theory. Enjoy the company.

I notice that nobody has addressed why there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for the last 16 years, which is at least as long as the previous warning period from 1980. I also get very tired of the old chestnut about Exxon being behind all the deniers whilst ignoring Goldman Sachs who are still trying to get the carbon trading bubble inflated. I have posted at least a dozen peer reviewed papers on here but it always seems to be the same old refrain, where is the credible evidence? There is credible evidence to say that rising CO2 is a good thing as it is causing erstwhile deserts to bloom again and introduces a powerful negative feedback mechanism as well.

Far from turning the Earth into a baking lifeless hell as had been thought, elevated levels of atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] are causing the deserts of the world to bloom with new green foliage.

green_deserts.jpg


Fire up the patio heater and watch the world turn green!

That's according to new research from government scientists in Australia, who've been scanning the planet's formerly dry and lifeless regions using satellite imagery. "We found a strong link between the rise in atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations and a greening that’s been observed across many of the world’s arid environments," explains Dr Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia's national science agency.

According to Donohue and his colleagues' research, climbing levels of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the air correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982 to 2010 across arid areas in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa. "In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently," Dr Donohue says. "This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results."

Scientists had long speculated that rising carbon levels would make life easier for the green plants which keep us all alive by the sun-powered process of photosynthesis, in which they suck CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the air, mix it with water to make sugar for themselves and throw away some of the oxygen (so permitting us animals to breathe). "Our work was able to tease-out the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] fertilisation effect," explains Donohue, saying he and his team adjusted their satellite data to account for other processes such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

Donohue cautions that the greening of the deserts could have unforeseen side-effects - for instance there might be more wildfires, now that there are more leaves and plants in arid regions to dry out and burn during hot seasons. Certainly there has been much media coverage of wildfires in recent years. Nonetheless, he says, "on the face of it, elevated CO[SUB]2[/SUB] boosting the foliage in dry country is good news". That would certainly seem to be true for those worried about a warming world. A powerful negative feedback of this sort would suggest that worries over positive-feedback runaway warming - of the sort which underlies the more negative climate forecasts - is much less likely than had been thought.

Donohue and his colleagues' research has been published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and was flagged up by CSIRO here. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/
 
dear idiot the entire field of science has a majority opinion on this.
I honor their opinion not yours

LMAO... 'the entire field of science'... seriously... fucking hilarious

Yet another example of the fear mongers on your side Mutt. They cannot even reference the 'entire field of science' that they think supports their position. They cannot even articulate their position let alone support it with data.

They just run along chanting 'consensus!'
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100036.htm


Science News


... from universities, journals, and other research organizations





Save Email Print Share




Increases in Extreme Rainfall Linked to Global Warming


Feb. 1, 2013 — A worldwide review of global rainfall data led by the University of Adelaide has found that the intensity of the most extreme rainfall events is increasing across the globe as temperatures rise.


In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

Lead author Dr Seth Westra said, "The results are that rainfall extremes are increasing on average globally. They show that there is a 7% increase in extreme rainfall intensity for every degree increase in global atmospheric temperature.

"Assuming an increase in global average temperature by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, this could mean very substantial increases in rainfall intensity as a result of climate change
 
LMAO... 'the entire field of science'... seriously... fucking hilarious

Yet another example of the fear mongers on your side Mutt. They cannot even reference the 'entire field of science' that they think supports their position. They cannot even articulate their position let alone support it with data.

They just run along chanting 'consensus!'


Is the scientific field clamoring for more oil burning?
 
Is the scientific field clamoring for more oil burning?

No. There is nothing wrong with trying to find alternative resources for energy or ways to more efficiently burn the fossil fuels and reduce pollution. I encourage both of those.

That said, the fear mongering regarding CO2 and man made global warming is just that... fear mongering.
 
Climate Alarmism – Using Our Fear of Hurricanes

November 4, 2012

Hurricane Sandy has come and gone, leaving a path of destruction. More than 100 people have been killed and 8.5 million lost power. Nineteen states from Maine to Tennessee were impacted, with deaths reported in 10 states. Widespread flooding and fires caused extensive damage in New Jersey and New York. More than two feet of snow fell in western Maryland, West Virginia, and parts of Tennessee. The power of nature in action is frightening to behold.

But some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse. Former Vice President Al Gore warns, “Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.” Activist Bill McKibben declares, “…what it means that we’re now seeing storms of this unprecedented magnitude. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it.”
These comments are an outgrowth of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.

The theory of man-made global warming claims that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing stronger hurricanes and storms, droughts and floods, the melting of Earth’s ice caps, and dangerous sea-level rise. Mr. Gore now paints the Halloween image of “dirty weather.”

Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules. Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.

But hurricanes are the result of larger forces. Sunlight falls directly on Earth’s Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on Polar Regions, were little energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth, including hurricanes, tropical storms, tornados, storm fronts, and the jet stream, along with ocean currents, acts to redistribute heat from the Tropics to the Poles. Hurricanes are born in the Tropics, where water evaporates from warm oceans, forming powerful rotating storms. Earth’s rotation then bends the path of hurricanes as they move north from the Tropics.

A large hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of one exploding 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes. Climatists claim that CO[SUB]2[/SUB], a trace gas, controls the weather, a system of huge forces with thousands of times more energy. This is more like the flea wagging the dog than the tail wagging the dog. Even more incredible, some claim that we can control the weather by controlling this trace gas. “Man-made warming has consequences. The time to act is now,” according to environmentalist Joseph Romm.

But, wasn’t hurricane Sandy unique in history? Well, not quite. The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane battered the New Jersey coast with winds estimated at 135 mph (Category 3), much stronger that those of Sandy (Category 1). Manhattan Island was flooded to Canal Street and this occurred at low tide. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel struck the Carolinas with 140 mph winds (Category 4). Hazel continued north along the U.S. Atlantic coast, through New York State and into Canada. Deaths from Hazel totaled 95 in the U.S. and 81 in Canada. More than 80 tropical or subtropical cyclones have hit the state of New York since the 1600s.

Climatism plays on human fear of nature to promote policy. Subsidize wind and solar power, stop using fossil fuels, switch to electric cars, change your light bulbs, green your business, become a vegetarian, have fewer kids, we are told. If you do all these things and more, then man will be able to control hurricanes, stop the rise of the seas, and save the polar bears.

Climate alarmists excel at gathering government funding to “fight” climate change. Today, the U.S. government is spending almost $9 billion each year in grants to study man-made climate change. Tens of billions more are spent for green energy subsidies, grants and loans. The world is spending over $250 billion each year to try to “decarbonize” national economies. Yet, mounting evidence shows that climate change is natural and man-made influences are very small. Suppose we shift efforts away from misguided efforts to control climate and toward solving the real problems of our nation and the world?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/04/climate-alarmism-using-our-fear-of-hurricanes/
 
These moronic boobs called Liberals don't know history. What we do know is that they are anti industry, anti development, anti free market, anti private sector.
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100036.htm


Science News


... from universities, journals, and other research organizations





Save Email Print Share




Increases in Extreme Rainfall Linked to Global Warming


Feb. 1, 2013 — A worldwide review of global rainfall data led by the University of Adelaide has found that the intensity of the most extreme rainfall events is increasing across the globe as temperatures rise.


In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

Lead author Dr Seth Westra said, "The results are that rainfall extremes are increasing on average globally. They show that there is a 7% increase in extreme rainfall intensity for every degree increase in global atmospheric temperature.

"Assuming an increase in global average temperature by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, this could mean very substantial increases in rainfall intensity as a result of climate change


Funny, but that article doesn't link to the data or their study. Nor does it define 'extreme rainfall' in their eyes.

Obviously warmer air can hold more water. But where is their data showing how that links to more 'extreme rainfall'? Also, if we haven't seen significant warming in the past 16 years now... how does that affect their 'study'?
 

When the rating effort was completed, the team found that 66.4 per cent of the abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW, and 0.3 per cent fit in the "uncertain" category.

ROFLMAO... thanks for proving that there is a 2/3 majority that are undecided. It shows that it is not a consensus. It shows that the 'entire field of science' is NOT behind you. Which is exactly what I have been saying.
 
Back
Top