Earth Is Heating Faster Than We Realized

He is a licensed meteorologist and he has never photoshopped himself as fricking Himler. Once you photoshop yourself as Himler your credibility is over.

Cook is also not a solar physicist. He works for the psychology department.

 

“OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.”

 

Except that the comparison doesn't hold water, as the 97% consensus never happened.

"Cook mis-characterized the results of his first paper. The 97% is the number that represents the papers that implied humans are contributors . . . but not PRIMARY contributors. I am actually surprised that 100% didn’t show humans were contributors, because of course we are.

Cook et. al. did not find that "over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." (emphasis mine). Any interested reader can check that it is false by simply comparing the two papers of which Cook is a co-author.

It is that combined group that the 97.1% figure refers to. Hence that is the number of papers that, according to Cook et. al., implied that humans at least contribute to global warming. The number that imply that humans are the primary cause (category 1) is some smaller percentage which Cook et. al. do not report. - http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.be/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html ​

 

Strawman Alert!!!! I never said alternative energy research isn't a good idea or the solution. The problem you just ran away from is there is no other fuel source at the moment that is viable for the human race to survive. Until someone discovers this new energy....WTF exactly are you guys whining about? especially since you are using fossil fuel to get on the internet to complain about others using it. Its not like you guys have found a new energy and everyone is ignoring it, the problem is......it doesn't exist. Lets take it a step further and actually say man IS causing it, what is your plan to stop it? Do you want tractor trailer trucks to stop bringing people food, supplies and medicine? We would all be dead by this time next week if that happened.
Tell us what your plan is to fix it. We are all already aware we need a new energy source, its not oil, its not coal, its not nuclear, its not wind, its not solar. Tell us what the leftist plan is. Pretty please. If you don't have one then what exactly is the issue?
As far as volcanoes, tell us how long volcanoes have been emitting CO2 for in millions of years please, then tell us how long man has used fossil fuel and explain why millions and millions of years of highly active volcanoes producing CO2 has provided a thriving earth for eons and a hundred years of man burning oil has killed the planet?

 

Yeah------------------its getting so damned hot there is now more ice in both the Arctic and Anarctic than there has been for many year. Global warmng loons contend more heat = more ice.!!!!

 

He was a student of physics, he does not have a degree in it. He took a class. He is a cartoonist and a "Communications Fellow" and is studying psychology so he can fool more people like you.

 

Google Global Dimming if you would like to find out one of the major reasons why this is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Ash….. soot…. and dust from industry have exactly the same effect on climate change as a major volcanic eruption….. they reduce the amount of heat from sunlight that reaches the earth!

Global Dimming is a factor that may not have been considered very accurately by the people who put forward the Kyoto proposals.

http://www.politicalforum.com/humor...2000-election-but-negates-global-dimming.html
In alternate time line Mr. Gore wins the 2000 election but negates Global Dimming....
I personally loved the film "An Inconvenient Truth." I have watched it four or five times at least. It played a huge role in my deciding to join a political party that takes climate change very seriously.

Largely due to his film I actually put in two submissions for The Virgin Earth Challenge.

I do have one criticism for his film though..... the diplomacy quotient was extremely low and America is more divided than ever partly because of the flavor of his film.
………..
In theory....... Mr. Gore's policy could have ended up greatly decreasing the Global Dimming Effect..... at the same time that it might do little to reduce a general Global Warming trend.... which could lead to rapid warming.....and of course increased cracking and sliding on the land based Greenland Ice Pack.... the world's glaciers and the outer regions of Antarctica......

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Bush may have deliberately allowed somewhat bad policy to continue...… because they probably had been told that the factors that increase Global Dimming..... do tend to mask Global Warming.... .which could mean within five decades we may know that that they may have had a basically good idea..... in comparison to worst possible alternative.....??????!!!

http://www.baproducts.com/chetmap.htm

 

And the consequences could be more severe than we tend to imagine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110801160231.htm

Ancient glacial melting shows that small amount of subsurface warming can trigger rapid collapse of ice shelves

 

I'm freezing my ass off right now. And have you seen the snapshots of Buffalo, NY today??? Global warming, my patootie.

 

This seems logical…. but a general warming trend in the Arctic…. .especially around Greenland……. is something that we should worry about!

 

How about the cooling in the Antarctic? How about the swings from heating to cooling? You realize that cooling kills more people than warming does don't you?

 

All these computer models are conceptualized and created with a true yet biased presumption that Earth is warming over long term. It is true the Earth is warming since the Sun likewise increases its activity, but over a span of a billion or billions of years. In between you can still experience countless ice ages and such. Since we will fry eventually, may as well live out our existence to the fullest and get rich off alarmist scare tactics.

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something caused the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. You can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. It simply can't grow back fast enough. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation, why bother us with trivial pursuits.

 

That's called 'weather'. It is not 'climate'. Learn to differentiate; education is your friend.

 

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder, so it's not exactly the primary driver of greenhouse gasses. I'll support it when the government gets realistic in implementing it, especially when other countries are willing to destroy the environment because they don't care. There's a lot of low cost solutions we can do now, that make a big difference, and I have no problems with that. As for the extremely expensive solutions based on unproven technology, or the EPA regulations that unrealistically drop allowable levels to near what the environment produces naturally, yea I'm going to draw the line. I'm not willing to pay a fortune to make up for some guy in another country burning tires or dumping raw sewage and trash directly into the ocean.

Anonymous

 

“OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.”

 

there are lairs and paid people on both sides, but it is a fact that man is contributing to climate change, the question is what will be the effect

 

And climate is made up of the weather isn't it and we've had more than 20 years now of little if any warming and phony computer models which predicted huge increases in warming.

 

That is the only question and it is not answered. The current hypothesis is not something that is, by any means, true.

 

hopefully temps will continue to rise a couple of degrees and CO2 will keep increasing. Plant life loves CO2 and warmer temps. Hence you will few farms you find north of the arctic circle.

oh and before some nutjob claims that Co2 is bad for plants


http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/co2gen.asp

Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth, and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or 4 times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant quality.

 

The New Consensus: 100 Percent Of Scientists Agree That Global Warming ‘Stopped’ Or ‘Slowed Down’

The Obama administration and environmental groups have long claimed 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, but there’s a new consensus they may be less willing to acknowledge.

Using the same methodology as the vaunted “97 percent” paper by researcher John Cook, two climate scientists have made a bold discovery: virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming has “stopped” or “slowed down” in recent years.

“We didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years,” wrote scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute.

“This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating, and supports arguments that the amount of warming that will occur over the remainder of the 21st century as a result of human fossil fuel usage will be at the low end of the IPCC projections, or even lower,” the two scientists added. “Low-end warming yields low-end impacts.”

Last year, President Obama claimed that “ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: [climate] change is real, man-made and dangerous.” His claim was based on a paper by Australian researcher John Cook, who looked at scientific papers as the basis for his finding that 97 percent agreed that humans caused global warming.

“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,” Cook wrote in his study that was published last year.

Cook’s paper, however, has been heavily criticized for “cooking” the numbers on what scientist actually think about global warming. Others, however, say Cook’s paper misses a key scientific question: what is the current state of global warming?

“So while 97% of scientists may agree that global warming is caused by humans, virtually 100% agree that global warming has stopped or slowed considerably during the 21st Century,” wrote Michaels and Knappenberger.

Michaels and Knappenberger searched for papers published between 2009 and 2014 in the Web of Science database, searching for the terms “pause,” “hiatus” or “slowdown” along with the terms “global” and “temperature.” They then read the abstracts, or the whole paper if necessary, to determine what position the authors took on the pause in warming.

Of the 100 papers identified by Michaels and Knappenberger, 65 had nothing to do with recent global temperature trends — which is typical of papers written before 2010. The remaining 35 papers used by the Cato scientists all acknowledged in someway a “hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring.”

“We surely may have missed a few papers that were not cataloged in the database we used, or that weren’t captured by our search terms, but the evidence is overwhelming — virtually all (if not actually all) scientific papers that mention a hiatus or pause agree that it exists,” the Cato scientists noted.

Scientists have been struggling to explain why there has been no significant warming trend during the 21st century. Satellite data shows there has been no warming for the 18 years and surface temperature data points to a lack of warming for the last 15 years or so.

Dozens of explanations have been put forward in an attempt to reconcile why most climate models were unable to predict such a prolonged period with no warming despite rapidly rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A study from earlier this year found that the lack of warming is due to “heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic.”

This oceanic cooling cycle “associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years,” according to Professor Ka-Kit Tung from the University of Washington.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/19/t...e-that-global-warming-stopped-or-slowed-down/