Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

I also accept the fact that the risk are growing and ignorance of the fast that we are creating ever increasing risk of a run away green house because we are no doing anything to stop, reverse or even slow down our greenhouse emissions and this leads to the factual conclusion that when the current effects holding back to predicted rise stops we will have a climate change that will have greater economic impact on human society than doing something now.

This is not a fact. This is an opinion that directly contradicts the fact you agreed to in your previous sentence.

[Super Nova]

I also accept the fact that the risk are growing and ignorance of the fast that we are creating ever increasing risk of a run away green house because we are no doing anything to stop, reverse or even slow down our greenhouse emissions and this leads to the factual conclusion that when the current effects holding back to predicted rise stops we will have a climate change that will have greater economic impact on human society than doing something now.

This is not a fact. This is an opinion that directly contradicts the fact you agreed to in your previous sentence.

No, that's just your opinion on the fact.

[IQS.RLOW]

Runaway AGW is not a fact, it is a hypothesis that is not born out by the current data.

[Super Nova]

Runaway AGW is not a fact, it is a hypothesis that is not born out by the current data.

I think you use the "current data" term as the foundation of your denial.

Let's look at some stuff that is current.

Extract from a good article.
When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole.

... plus this extract. The heat is building up in the oceans......

The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening.

There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace.

The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated.


Read more........

Here is an article from today. This article contradicts one earlier in this thread where the word "crisis" was used but it inferred that most scientists agreed it was all BS.

Let kill off the issue that scientist don't have a consensus....... shall we.

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it.

This extract is interesting.... the evil deniers have an agenda.
Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate"

This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance", the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.


Next good point.

Another important point is that once you accept that humans are causing global warming, you must also accept that global warming is still happening. We cause global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect, and our greenhouse gas emissions just keep accelerating. This ties in to the fact that as recent research has showed, global warming is accelerating. If you accept that humans are causing global warming, as over 97% of peer-reviewed scientific papers do, then this conclusion should not be at all controversial. Global warming cannot have suddenly stopped.

Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in peoples' decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results

The full article.....

[Super Nova]

More update information. - Facts.

World in 'new danger zone', UN's climate chief warns

The world has entered a "new danger zone" with levels of Earth-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere never experienced by humankind, the UN's climate chief has warned.

When it breached the CO2 threshold of 400 parts per million (ppm) last week, the world "crossed an historic threshold and entered a new danger zone," Christiana Figueres said in a statement urging policy action.

The level measured by US monitors has not existed on Earth in three to five million years - a time when temperatures were several degrees warmer and the sea level was 20 to 40 metres (22 to 44 yards) higher than today, experts said.

....

"The world must wake up and take note of what this means for human security, human welfare and economic development," said Ms Figueres, who oversees global negotiations aimed at limiting warming-induced climate change.

The link for more detail on the facts. Published this week....

[IQS.RLOW]

I've been waiting for you to post the cartoonists fraudulent 'consensus' survey
Despite the fact that consensus in science is just bullshit. Science is not a democracy, science is a dictatorship. The methodology has already been flagged as flawed because the 'independent and anonymous raters' of abstracts were neither independent or anonymous.

As for your new danger zone, 350 used to be the danger zone- the tipping point then it was 380 now it's 400 the world is in a CO2 minimum cycle...it's like predicting in Autumn that the next 3-6 months are going to be warm and the next 3 months after that will be even warmer...O.M.Gzzzzzz we're allllll roooooooned

[Super Nova]

The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated.

Do you think this above is not a scientific truth?

[IQS.RLOW]

No, it's not a truth because there are only 8 years of deep ocean temp records.

[Super Nova]

No, it's not a truth because there are only 8 years of deep ocean temp records.

Those measurements confirm the theory though even though they have been running a short time, right?

[IQS.RLOW]

Not at all. The missing heat argument is nothing but a search to find a solution to a failed model

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is- ... eep-ocean/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/mor ... sing-heat/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So far, I would say that the so-called missing heat problem is not yet solved. I have argued before that I don’t think it actually exists, since the “missing heat” argument assumes that feedbacks in the climate system are positive and that radiative energy is accumulating in the system faster than surface warming would seem to support.

For the reasons outlined above, Trenberth’s view of deep ocean storage of the missing heat is still theoretically possible since increased vertical ocean mixing doesn’t have to be wind-driven. But I remain unconvinced by arguments that depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degree.

Finally, as I have mentioned before, even if increased rate of mixing of heat downward is to blame for a recent lack of surface warming, the total energy involved in the warming of the deep oceans is smaller than that expected for a “sensitive” climate system. Plots of changes in ocean heat content since the 1950′s might look dramatic with an accumulation of gazillions of Joules, but the energy involved is only 1 part in 1,000 of the average energy flows in and out of the climate system. To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith for even me to muster.