*recycles*

Aug. 26, 2012 satellite photo of Arctic ice. (NASA)


Aug. 15, 2013 satellite photo of Arctic ice. (NASA)
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/a...2013#sthash.HjcmLFzg.dpuf


By
MATT RIDLEY

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.

Specifically, the draft report says that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is "extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), "likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and "very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was "likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius and "very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.

Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the "likely" range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don't adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating "equilibrium climate sensitivity" and "transient climate response" on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that "the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius."

Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That's uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar's model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that "hindcast" the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.

Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.

Explaining this failure is now a cottage industry in climate science. At first, it was hoped that an underestimate of sulfate pollution from industry (which can cool the air by reflecting heat back into space) might explain the pause, but the science has gone the other way—reducing its estimate of sulfate cooling. Now a favorite explanation is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. Yet the data to support this thesis come from ocean buoys and deal in hundredths of a degree of temperature change, with a measurement error far larger than that. Moreover, ocean heat uptake has been slowing over the past eight years.

The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.

NATURE JOURNAL DISCREDITS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING



Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification,”

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere. The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes. The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increase. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere; the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye”. Because research scientists are the primary audience this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently mapping of the human genome.

But Nature’s reputation suffered a huge black eye on November 21, 2009 when a hacker broke into the computers at t he University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released 1079 emails and 72 documents exposing will-full fraud in several scientific papers published in Nature that supported Al Gore’s theory Anthropogenic Global Warming. CRU houses the most world’s most extensive data base on atmospheric temperatures and the e-mails exposed blatant exaggerations of the warming data, possible illegal destruction of evidence, and conspiracy to manipulate or suppress data not supporting of the man-made Global Warming theory. One e- mail describes tricks used supporting Anthropogenics in major Nature article:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

As the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media hyper-ventilated over the hacker leaks they referred to as the “Climategate Scandal” ; Nature quickly retaliated in defense of Anthropogenic Global Warming with a scathing editorial titled: “Climatologists Under Pressure” stating: “Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.” The editorial skewered academic doubters of man-made Global Warming as the “climate-change-denialist fringe” and in a shocking Freudian-slip the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:

“This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.”

For Nature to now publish research that eviscerates the Anthropogenics theory heralds a tectonic rejection by academia of support for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UN protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce their atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gas to 94.8% of 1990 levels to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The U.S. Senate legislation that Nature sought to stridently lobbying for is named “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007”; commonly known as the Cap-and-Trade Bill.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that the costs of complying with Cap-and-Trade would include; a 29% increase in the price of gasoline, losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and lead to reductions of $1.7 to $4.8 trillion of the U.S. GDP by 2030. Furthermore, Cap-and-Trade would set up a gargantuan intergovernmental bureaucracy that would likely ban natural gas fracking, steam injection of tar sands, and surface coal mining for exploration and development of America’s immense energy reserves.

After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs; the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history. Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.u...-wrong.html#ixzz2f5iFJ89D


Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sc...tudy-finds/#ixzz2f5igIfgg


Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.
http://www.telegraph.co.u...forecasts-were-wrong.html



Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong

Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures. The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation. They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.
- See more at: http://www.friendsofscien...=458#sthash.gyD26fiJ.dpuf



Global warming forecasts wrong, says UN report

http://www.news.com.au/na...ry-fncynjr2-1226720435324

links do not work please repost

links do not work please repost
- the_cause2000

http://static.someecards....1MWQwNmI0NzA2MWVlYWQx.png

If you still believe in 'climate change' read this… http://blogs.telegraph.co...climate-change-read-this/

If you still believe in 'climate change' read this… http://blogs.telegraph.co...climate-change-read-this/
- Doppleganger

Bad link

Bad link
- BingoLady

ya i cant get the links to work

Sun News

MONTE SOLBERG | QMI AGENCY
Finally, some good news on the climate change front: Our planetary hot flashes are not as hot as we thought.

According to reports, the International Panel on Climate Change will soon reveal that the climate isn't warming nearly as fast as predicted.

In 2007, leading science guys at the IPCC projected that the planet would warm at a rate of .2 degrees every 10 years. They now say the rate is only .12 degrees.

It seems the computers were at fault, which we can all appreciate. Who hasn't had their computer send out stupidly worded e-mails, or make thoughtless comments leaving their human owners to take the blame?

Anyway, this is terrific news given what these same people were saying in previous IPCC reports. Until it was revealed that the computers got it so wrong, there was deep concern that many of our leading and favourite islands (I'm talking about you Prince Edward) would soon disappear under the waves, never to grow another potato.

Given the new projections, it looks like Islanders will have a bit more time to move stuff out of the basement before the waves start lapping up around dad's easy chair.

All of this should be good news, and yet not everyone is happy. For some reason, many climate change warriors seem disappointed that things aren't quite as bad as they thought. If so, they probably won't want to hear about the Arctic ice cap either.

Satellite images show that it grew 60% this year compared to August 2012.

We now have as much ice as we had back in 2002. Polar bears everywhere are celebrating with a bottle of Coke, though they shouldn't celebrate too much just yet.

One commentator sniffed that the sudden growth in the northern polar cap is likely just a regression to the mean.

What he meant is that after the downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, it's normal to have a year where the sea ice grows.

OK, fair enough, but in the meantime shouldn't we take some good news where we can find it?

I mean, 60% growth is a big jump. It might even mean that it's more than a regression to the mean, if you know what I mean.

But the good/bad news doesn't end there.

As Nobel Prize winner Al Gore points out in his "documentary," An Inconvenient Truth, a warmer planet will mean more and stronger hurricanes.

Sadly, this year the hurricanes found this truth so inconvenient that they have barely shown up.

Late arrival

The first hurricane to form this year was the second latest to form in history.

Obviously this is terrific news.

Hurricanes wreck stuff and kill people.

It's good news that people like Al Gore should be celebrating.

But then again, these are just a series of disconnected anecdotes.

They don't prove anything. I'm certainly not a scientist and if nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for my work in this area, I will not accept.

In the meantime, let's hope those IPCC scientists are able to buy some new computers.

If they keep at it, I'm sure they'll eventually get it right.

MONTE SOLBERG | QMI AGENCY
Finally, some good news on the climate change front: Our planetary hot flashes are not as hot as we thought.

According to reports, the International Panel on Climate Change will soon reveal that the climate isn't warming nearly as fast as predicted.

In 2007, leading science guys at the IPCC projected that the planet would warm at a rate of .2 degrees every 10 years. They now say the rate is only .12 degrees.

It seems the computers were at fault, which we can all appreciate. Who hasn't had their computer send out stupidly worded e-mails, or make thoughtless comments leaving their human owners to take the blame?

Anyway, this is terrific news given what these same people were saying in previous IPCC reports. Until it was revealed that the computers got it so wrong, there was deep concern that many of our leading and favourite islands (I'm talking about you Prince Edward) would soon disappear under the waves, never to grow another potato.

Given the new projections, it looks like Islanders will have a bit more time to move stuff out of the basement before the waves start lapping up around dad's easy chair.

All of this should be good news, and yet not everyone is happy. For some reason, many climate change warriors seem disappointed that things aren't quite as bad as they thought. If so, they probably won't want to hear about the Arctic ice cap either.

Satellite images show that it grew 60% this year compared to August 2012.

We now have as much ice as we had back in 2002. Polar bears everywhere are celebrating with a bottle of Coke, though they shouldn't celebrate too much just yet.

One commentator sniffed that the sudden growth in the northern polar cap is likely just a regression to the mean.

What he meant is that after the downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, it's normal to have a year where the sea ice grows.

OK, fair enough, but in the meantime shouldn't we take some good news where we can find it?

I mean, 60% growth is a big jump. It might even mean that it's more than a regression to the mean, if you know what I mean.

But the good/bad news doesn't end there.

As Nobel Prize winner Al Gore points out in his "documentary," An Inconvenient Truth, a warmer planet will mean more and stronger hurricanes.

Sadly, this year the hurricanes found this truth so inconvenient that they have barely shown up.

Late arrival

The first hurricane to form this year was the second latest to form in history.

Obviously this is terrific news.

Hurricanes wreck stuff and kill people.

It's good news that people like Al Gore should be celebrating.

But then again, these are just a series of disconnected anecdotes.

They don't prove anything. I'm certainly not a scientist and if nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for my work in this area, I will not accept.

In the meantime, let's hope those IPCC scientists are able to buy some new computers.

If they keep at it, I'm sure they'll eventually get it right.
- Doppleganger

This is 88% untrue

Final verdict expected Friday: Humans caused global warming

http://www.nbcnews.com/sc...global-warming-8C11266754

- watsonnostaw

- kicksave856

i fail to see the humor in this

i fail to see the humor in this
- Flyfreaky

it's hiding behind the amazing

it's hiding behind the amazing
- the_cause2000

ty

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more certain than ever before that mankind is the main culprit for global warming and warned the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would linger for centuries.

A report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), played down the fact temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years, saying there were substantial natural variations that masked a long-term warming trend.

It said the Earth was set for further warming and more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels as greenhouse gases built up in the atmosphere. The oceans would become more acidic in a threat to some marine life.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century," according to the summary issued after a week-long meeting in Stockholm and meant to guide policymakers in shifting toward greener energies from fossil fuels.

"Extremely likely" means a probability of at least 95 per cent, up from 90 per cent in the panel's last report in 2007 and 66 per cent in 2001.

The report, compiled from the work of hundreds of scientists, will face extra scrutiny this year after its 2007 report included an error that exaggerated the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers. An outside review later found that the mistake did not affect its main conclusions.

Skeptics who challenge evidence for man-made climate change and question the need for urgent action have become emboldened by the fact that temperatures have risen more slowly recently despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPCC reiterated from the 2007 report that a warming trend is "unequivocal". And some effects would last far beyond the lifetimes of people now alive.

Urgent action needed
"As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of carbon dioxide, we are committed to climate change and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of carbon dioxide stop," co-chair Thomas Stocker said.

The UN's top climate official, Christiana Figueres, said the report underscored a need for urgent action to combat global warming. Governments have promised to agree a UN deal by the end of 2015 to restrict emissions.

"To steer humanity out of the high danger zone, governments must step up immediate climate action and craft an agreement in 2015 that helps to scale up and speed up the global response," she said.

The report said that temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions.

And it said world sea levels could rise by between 26 and 82 cm by the late 21st century, driven up by melting ice and an expansion of water as it warms, in a threat to coastal cities from Shanghai to San Francisco.

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more certain than ever before that mankind is the main culprit for global warming and warned the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would linger for centuries.

A report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), played down the fact temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years, saying there were substantial natural variations that masked a long-term warming trend.

It said the Earth was set for further warming and more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels as greenhouse gases built up in the atmosphere. The oceans would become more acidic in a threat to some marine life.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century," according to the summary issued after a week-long meeting in Stockholm and meant to guide policymakers in shifting toward greener energies from fossil fuels.

"Extremely likely" means a probability of at least 95 per cent, up from 90 per cent in the panel's last report in 2007 and 66 per cent in 2001.

The report, compiled from the work of hundreds of scientists, will face extra scrutiny this year after its 2007 report included an error that exaggerated the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers. An outside review later found that the mistake did not affect its main conclusions.

Skeptics who challenge evidence for man-made climate change and question the need for urgent action have become emboldened by the fact that temperatures have risen more slowly recently despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPCC reiterated from the 2007 report that a warming trend is "unequivocal". And some effects would last far beyond the lifetimes of people now alive.

Urgent action needed
"As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of carbon dioxide, we are committed to climate change and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of carbon dioxide stop," co-chair Thomas Stocker said.

The UN's top climate official, Christiana Figueres, said the report underscored a need for urgent action to combat global warming. Governments have promised to agree a UN deal by the end of 2015 to restrict emissions.

"To steer humanity out of the high danger zone, governments must step up immediate climate action and craft an agreement in 2015 that helps to scale up and speed up the global response," she said.

The report said that temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions.

And it said world sea levels could rise by between 26 and 82 cm by the late 21st century, driven up by melting ice and an expansion of water as it warms, in a threat to coastal cities from Shanghai to San Francisco.
- the_cause2000

tl;dr, bumhole.


oh, it's you. *reads*

tl;dr, bumhole.


oh, it's you. *reads*
- kicksave856

let me know what it says. i only read the headline cut/pasted the rest

let me know what it says. i only read the headline cut/pasted the rest
- the_cause2000

will do.


*didn't really read*

Earth's getting hotter and scientists are more sure than ever that Doppleganger is a big part of the problem