If you never read this 2014 report, you should. If this doesn't convince every American that AGW is for real, and is a major problem, nothing will. Here is the link, with some highlights of this very thorough report: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences. Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska. This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country. .... Over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly. Increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. With each passing year, the accumulating evidence further expands our understanding and extends the record of observed trends in temperature, precipitation, sea level, ice mass, and many other variables recorded by a variety of measuring systems and analyzed by independent research groups from around the world. It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections. What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.
Sweet... Notice, we never actually quantify the "impacts associated with human induced climate change"? They are asserted, as the quote demonstrates, and yet, we never actually find any quantifiable items to evaluate, do we? Why is that. So, we know that the climate does change. Of that, there is no doubt. Nor has there ever been any doubt of this. We can point to the city of New York and marvel that there isn't, now, a mile of ice covering it where once there was. We understand that this is a natural process. Until science can QUANTIFY any of their hyperbolic assertions, they are to be treated as speculative at best. The "objects" then, trending temps (which FYI are a certainty level of less than 60%) the ice mass scary monster (Antarctic and arctic ice well within normal this year and improving, meaning the extent is increasing), sea levels languishing at zero, and other non specific variables that we won't name because they aren't quantifiable, are all then aggregated into this meme that not only is the climate changing, but we, humans are responsible for it not all, most of it. Which, frankly is disturbing. As in disturbing that there are those who would coopt a natural process to derive personal wealth, privilege and power from. Because that is essentially all this is ever about. Ask Al Gore, why he doesn't just use go to meeting instead of traveling privately with his army/entourage that consumes energy like it's free or something with zero consideration that their using up all that energy doesn't then add to the problems. And that truly is the rub here folks. The folks who most directly financially benefit from this little legislative extortion aren't you. It won't be me. And clearly, the only folks who will benefit are those for whom this BS creates little islands of scarcity from which yet more money can be demanded from you for. If you don't get this, then you are blind.
Uhh, yeah... So all these people are in a conspiracy against you? Seems as if they intentionally got a lot of involvement, from various sectors, just so folks wouldn't claim that. The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
Let's say that's all true. What's the answer? Sign the Paris deal which let's certain third world countries off the hook and penalizes America? You guys claim we need drastic reductions in C02 or the **** hits the fan. In the real world though the population grows and more and more of the third world moves up toward first world status and wants more food, houses, transportation, clothing on and on. There's no way you are ever going to maintain much less drastically reduce C02 put into the atmosphere in coming decades so there's really nothing left but to adapt to a changing climate. The realist on your side of this face this fact and you should too. The following assumes that somehow we suddenly stopped all C02 input and even that doesn't end well so your tinkering around the edges is a complete waste of time and pardon the pun, energy. "What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders? The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it. In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. We’d also need to reverse deforestation and other land uses that affect the Earth’s energy balance (the difference between incoming energy from the sun and what’s returned to space). We would have to radically change our agriculture. If we did this, it would eliminate additional planetary warming, and limit the rise of air temperature. Such a cessation of warming is not possible. So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in air-temperature increase as the atmosphere catches up with all the heat that the Earth has accumulated. After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations. This decades-long lag between cause and effect is due to the long time it takes to heat the ocean’s huge mass. The energy that is held in the Earth by increased carbon dioxide does more than heat the air. It melts ice; it heats the ocean. Compared to air, it’s harder to raise the temperature of water; it takes time – decades. However, once the ocean temperature is elevated, it will release heat back to the air, and be measured as surface heating. Scientists run thought experiments to help think through the complex processes of emissions reductions and limits to warming. One experiment held forcing, or the effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s energy balance, to year 2000 levels, which implies a very low rate of continued emissions. It found as the oceans’ heating catches up with the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature would rise about another 0.6℃. Scientists refer to this as committed warming." http://theconversation.com/if-we-st...-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882
Oceans are heated by the sun, not the atmosphere. The atmosphere heat content to ocean heat content is comparable to a fly against a semi.
There is no doubt the world has a long way to go. Countries like China and India are doing a lot to reduce their emissions. In recent years, China has installed more renewables than the US. The global temperature is rising. There are huge impact differences between various degrees of rising. In short, I would say that we should do whatever we can.
And this is the hyperbole we get. Fear, angst, whatever you want to call it. The Climate does change. The question is how much impact our inputs add to what already happens naturally. It's like asking, should we spend time to enhance the color of the sky if we could. We see the fear mongering, the "huge impact difference", (whatever that's supposed to mean) except that it sounds suitably ominous. And then, we get to the parable, "Do whatever we can". To do what? Decrease pollution? Sure. Absolutely, But stand up a legislatively required wealth transfer scheme? Why? I would point out something else. When we say "renewables" you do understand the rape of the world that has to accompany that in the pursuit of the materials necessary to store said "renewable" energy, right? Your choice seems to be between a perception compared to the reality of the misery your direction requires.
If I believed in AGW I would think your position is too little too late and start preparing to adapt to a changing climate.
Good point but all in all I have to agree with the warmer scientist that say it's too late to do anything to stop it, the wheels are in motion. I myself don't think we are responsible for the climate but if I did I'd be in the too late faction.
"Warmest ever".... Which frankly, we know isn't exactly true, as we also know that historic temperatures have been much higher than they are today, by a factor of almost 50%. So, it's incredibly disingenuous for folks to propagate this information in such breathless apocalyptic doomsaying. I would also point out that this graph is expressed in F. The IPCC standard for NORMAL climate change is expressed in C, meaning 1.8F So, the STANDARD for warming from IPCC is 2C (3.8F) per century. Even if we take the manufactured data that produced this chart as real, A) there is no expectation that the increase will continue to increase, or B) that it would fall outside of STANDARD 2C per century. This isn't hard.
The real problem with AGW is that it is all based on models. No one can tell you how much climate change is natural. Without that there is no way to say how much is man-made. All models are flawed and multiply their flaws over time so any 'prediction' of the future is flawed and the reason the IPCC gives such a wide range for warming (which has widened over time), because they don't know and none of the models agree.
I agree with your statement. However, I don't adopt a defeatist attitude. There are different degrees.
So you disagree with this statement by the National Climate Assessment authors? Over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly. Increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. With each passing year, the accumulating evidence further expands our understanding and extends the record of observed trends in temperature, precipitation, sea level, ice mass, and many other variables recorded by a variety of measuring systems and analyzed by independent research groups from around the world. It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections. The first entry in the thread has a description of the task group. Are they deceiving you? Is the deception intentional?
I'll post the link if you'd like, but very long-range historical data relies on ice core samples. Geologists admit that these are not 100% reliable, in that they have no idea what other external factors could be related to core sections at the time. They provide good information, but neither side should claim them as absolute.
You're refusing to take on the challenge then. Even highly unreliable data today still suggests that we aren't close to creating a long term, long lasting condition. Nor are we capable of saying that the trend will in fact last, nor can we depend on the wealth transfer scheme to effectively produce any positive effect. So, you suggest that the historic data is "unreliable" and in the same breath suggest that it reliable enough to use as trending data. Ok, which is it? You don't get to have it both ways.
