CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue
CO2, more than any other cf driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[1, 2, 3] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases, tiny particles known as aerosols, and land use change of human origin on our climate between 1750 and 2005.[3] By measuring the abundance of heat-trapping gases in ice cores, the atmosphere, and other climate drivers along with models, the IPCC calculated the “radiative forcing” (RF) of each climate driver—in other words, the net increase (or decrease) in the amount of energy reaching Earth’s surface attributable to that climate driver. Positive RF values represent average surface warming and negative values represent average surface cooling. CO2 has the highest positive RF (see Figure 1) of all the human-influenced climate drivers compared by the IPCC. Other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), but are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere and being added more slowly.
Loved May weather back in February
I hope that weather comes back .......like....tomorrow! haha
Global Warming to Global Climate Shift? I have heard that back in the 70's it was said we were heading for the next ice age.
The fact is, no one knows what is going to happen or when.
The other fact is that the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic have been melting since the LAST ice age, thousands and thousands of years ago. The less ice there is the faster it melts as can be seen any time you buy a cold beverage with ice in it. It just happens naturally with time.
About the weather, again we have no idea's. Even with predictions, and good ones based on weather patterns and study of how patterns work even our Weather casters can't accurately predict the weather(we got what 2-3", it was supposed to be 4-6"). Next year we might be -10 the entire month of Jan, and in the 30's in Feb with snow.
We are a long way from our sun going super nova so until solar flares start really messing up our weather which is unlikely within our lifetimes or even our kids's I am sure we are ok.
LOL, sorry, the whole Global Warming thing I always thought was a ton of horse c*** so it tend to set me off a wee bit.
Night all and enjoy the warmer temps we are due for. Hopefully it will be our last shoveling adventure for the year!
The big things when I was growing up were acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. We'd read about them in school and constantly see reports on the news. And then all of a sudden they weren't in the news any more.
You know why? Because WE ACTUALLY MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO FIX THEM.
In 1985 we had the Vienna Convention. In 1987 we had the Montreal Protocol. In 1989 we had amendments to the Clean Air Act. All of which eliminated the use of chlorofluorocarbons and drastically reduced the release of sulfur dioxide emissions.
I get so annoyed when people say "well (insert environmental catastrophe) was supposed to kill us and it never did so global warming must be a hoax too!"
Ask the people of Kiribati if global warming is a hoax.
/rant
was different from that of "global climate change" in that we understood the problem well enough to directly attribute the problems to specific anthropogenic pollutants, and we could even "toggle" the problem on and off. We could see immediate cause and effect. We could reproduce it in the laboratory. None of this was speculative.
The science behind "global climate change" is far different. We cannot identify a specific emission or pollutant or attribute pollutants specifically to anthropogenic activity. We cannot reproduce it in the laboratory, nor can we "toggle" the effect on and off in the field. We like to claim CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are the culprit, but ignore non-anthropogenic sources of CO2 (except for the foolish EPA and their million dollar taxpayer paid dtudy of cow farts contrbuting to global warming). We also conveniently ignore forest fires, vulcanism and other vastly larger sources of global warming emissions than man can possibly make. We have no idea and no way to predict a timetable of effects, for damage or restoration. We onveniently forget solar activity and natural geologic cycles of warming and cooling, including the fact that we have had far worse ice cap melt and de-glaciation fairly often when looking at the geological history.
Global warming may not be a hoax... but it may not be man-made (or man-cured) either.
we should be trying to take care of our planet. Recycle, reuse, repurpose, decrease packaging.. go hug a tree!
The science behind "global climate change" is far different. We cannot identify a specific emission or pollutant or attribute pollutants specifically to anthropogenic activity. We cannot reproduce it in the laboratory, nor can we "toggle" the effect on and off in the field. We like to claim CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are the culprit, but ignore non-anthropogenic sources of CO2 (except for the foolish EPA and their million dollar taxpayer paid dtudy of cow farts contrbuting to global warming). We also conveniently ignore forest fires, vulcanism and other vastly larger sources of global warming emissions than man can possibly make. We have no idea and no way to predict a timetable of effects, for damage or restoration. We onveniently forget solar activity and natural geologic cycles of warming and cooling, including the fact that we have had far worse ice cap melt and de-glaciation fairly often when looking at the geological history.
Global warming may not be a hoax... but it may not be man-made (or man-cured) either.
I'll raise my glass in agreement!
Cheers!
Rising temperatures have a direct correlation to the amount of CO2.
The science behind "global climate change" is far different. We cannot identify a specific emission or pollutant or attribute pollutants specifically to anthropogenic activity. We cannot reproduce it in the laboratory, nor can we "toggle" the effect on and off in the field. We like to claim CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are the culprit, but ignore non-anthropogenic sources of CO2 (except for the foolish EPA and their million dollar taxpayer paid dtudy of cow farts contrbuting to global warming). We also conveniently ignore forest fires, vulcanism and other vastly larger sources of global warming emissions than man can possibly make. We have no idea and no way to predict a timetable of effects, for damage or restoration. We onveniently forget solar activity and natural geologic cycles of warming and cooling, including the fact that we have had far worse ice cap melt and de-glaciation fairly often when looking at the geological history.
Global warming may not be a hoax... but it may not be man-made (or man-cured) either.
and I never said CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (along with water vapor and methane, primarily).
I DID say that policy-driven science, while well-funded, lacks the essential elements of Independence and Skepticism. It focuses upon "consensus" and not the merits of debate.
I regret posting what I did as TER is NOT an appropriate place for that debate (not even on the P&R board).
I'm out.
Climate is warming at an alarming rate. It's great in February. But not so great in July when temps spike 20-30 degrees above normal. Time to invest in Mylar suits
CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue
CO2, more than any other cf driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[1, 2, 3] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases, tiny particles known as aerosols, and land use change of human origin on our climate between 1750 and 2005.[3] By measuring the abundance of heat-trapping gases in ice cores, the atmosphere, and other climate drivers along with models, the IPCC calculated the “radiative forcing” (RF) of each climate driver—in other words, the net increase (or decrease) in the amount of energy reaching Earth’s surface attributable to that climate driver. Positive RF values represent average surface warming and negative values represent average surface cooling. CO2 has the highest positive RF (see Figure 1) of all the human-influenced climate drivers compared by the IPCC. Other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), but are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere and being added more slowly.
... I think, following the philosophy of preparing for contingencies, would balance the benefits of conserving energy and moving more decisively to renewable clean energy sources, even if the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming turns out to be wrong, against the enormous scale of disaster in store if that consensus proves correct.
I'm old enough to remember the Republican Party of Everett Dirksen and Dwight Eisenhower. True conservatives, as those gentlemen would have understood the term, are thin on the ground in the U.S. these days.
We have the Dems resident genius Nancy Pelosi to thank for those words of wisdom. lol
and one that Republicans, conservatives, fossil-fuel advocates, and people who just don't like Pelosi have been having fun with for the almost nine years since she said it.
None of which, of course, actually refutes in any way the reality of climate change or the need to move toward cleaner and more sustainable energy.
Even the most rabid righties knows Obama knows there are only 50 states.
In Pelosi's case, I wouldn't be so quick to call her misstatement a "gaffe"
BTW I was born and raised in her district and raised in an even more liberal environment that even your fair city. She's still an idiot, even if she is from my hometown.
It is sad to see people repeating all this crap. Of course, non-anthropogenic sources of CO2 are included in the calculations, along with forest fires, vulcanism and other sources of CO2. Solar activity has a minuscule effect on the heating of the earth, although the long brightening of the Sun is likely to remove all the water from the Earth's surface in 500 million years. Certainly, there were vastly larger sources of global warming in the past, but that is not an argument against global warming now.
There are a handful of mediocre scientists who probably can't get any other funding who accept funding from the fossil fuel industry and publish very dubious papers arguing against global warming. However, there are also serious scientific skeptics, like physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley that set out to disprove one of the major claims supporting global warming. He was very careful to get everything right, but he ended up confirming the claim he was trying to disprove.
The idea of proving everyone wrong is very attractive to scientists, and so it is ludicrous to think that no good scientists would be shooting it down if it was wrong. The fact is that the opposition to global warming is now limited to politicians and a few crackpots.
The science behind "global climate change" is far different. We cannot identify a specific emission or pollutant or attribute pollutants specifically to anthropogenic activity. We cannot reproduce it in the laboratory, nor can we "toggle" the effect on and off in the field. We like to claim CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are the culprit, but ignore non-anthropogenic sources of CO2 (except for the foolish EPA and their million dollar taxpayer paid dtudy of cow farts contrbuting to global warming). We also conveniently ignore forest fires, vulcanism and other vastly larger sources of global warming emissions than man can possibly make. We have no idea and no way to predict a timetable of effects, for damage or restoration. We onveniently forget solar activity and natural geologic cycles of warming and cooling, including the fact that we have had far worse ice cap melt and de-glaciation fairly often when looking at the geological history.
Global warming may not be a hoax... but it may not be man-made (or man-cured) either.
Science is not a belief system. Science is a method. Science uses techniques to measure and classify things and events, assemble data, control variables, infer effects, hypothesize outcomes and more to test belief systems, and to test itself. For example, if in a science experiment a hypothesized result fails to appear, scientists figure out what went wrong and try again, this time with the knowledge that the prior techniques, variables or inferences were wrong. Hypotheses are proved, disproved, or modified. Science is satisfied when test results point to more required testing.
Religion is a belief system. Politics are belief systems though of different kinds and not to be conflated with government, which, unfortunately, sometimes buckles under political belief systems. Belief systems are born of devotion to doctrines or non-scientific practices. The doctrines and practices of religion and politics do not self-test, though they demonstrate conflict and faults routinely and can evolve better with self-testing.
Belief systems can be tested by using scientific methodology and its general tools, but not all belief systems. Not religion nor politics (nor, sometimes, governments) pass muster to scientific testing because, after a point, religion, politics and government are no longer susceptible to scientific testing methodology due to faith, a human quality inherently immeasurable.
Man-made climate change is measurable and classifiable; anthropogenic global warming has been confirmed by scientific methods. The science community from ordinary business records knows how much fossil fuels have been mined, stored, transported and combusted since the Industrial Age. Science knows what chemical reactions take place in the Earth’s atmosphere. The review of such records and the application of ordinary science is not a mystery. The conclusions from such records and scientific applications are easy to understand among those educated in science, but are difficult to understand among persons indoctrinated in the faiths of religion and politics.
The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.
A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.
There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.
As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.
So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).
"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Political groups address this climate problem in the most screwball manner. In addition to and digression from Oreskes’s discussion, I add that the more extreme any doctrine, a greater sense of trust among adherents within that doctrine is revealed, paradoxical though that sounds. Thus, the extremer doctrine implants its own morality and such morality is claimed superior to that of other groups who are deemed less moral or deserving of conversion or, worse, expulsion or punishment or, in extreme cases, death (such as the current ISIL problem). Where among these kinds of classifications do anti-science, climate-change-denier political groups fall? Let’s see:
In an imaginary USA governmental subdivision, say, a predominantly Republican Party county or municipality, the local landfill does not charge a fee or otherwise does not charge the local taxpayers for dumping. In a laissez-faire marketplace, residents and businesses in neighboring counties and municipalities very likely are to take advantage of cost savings by transporting their dumpables to that free district for only the cost of transportation. How long before the free district residents and businesses complain about the implied subsidy they are giving to their out-of-district neighbors? Then, what do they do about the implied subsidy? Charge a fee or a tax? To their own constituency? Only to outsiders? Now picture in your mind the county or municipal council dialogue (much finger pointing, little science and economics) used to argue these points for the next year-or-so. Which group is more moral and which less moral? Is the solution to charge the local constituency a smaller fee and the outsiders a larger fee? Expanding these thoughts, a local government landfill dumping scenario is easier to grasp than an extrapolated global carbon dumping scenario – global scale impact, but same small mindset.
In Consilience And Consensus, Or Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong (Scientific American, December 2015), author Michael Shermer succeeds defining in a manner anyone can understand how scientific evidence is accumulated, reviewed, disseminated, and publicized which all result in the “convergence of evidence”. The author uses a comical anecdote to demonstrate the wrong-mindedness in the popular sphere: As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, “Why 100, if I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
The convergence of evidence on climate change is self-evident and clear. Earth’s atmosphere is a free dump. The marketplace of our atmosphere is skewed. We in the USA suffer our peculiar American dilemma – a large part of the American audience does not want to hear the evidence, and especially the current majority of elected officials will not tune in to the scientific discussion of the environment. Instead, they invoke faith to avoid discussion.
Now what? Decline? Or change? Maybe the wealthy 1% can buy their survival. The 99%? Hmmm.
while I was on my knees before you with your cock in my mouth. "swoon" Oh How I LUST intelligent men.
Haha, I like the way you think! Women who lust after intelligent men warm me. Globally. 
I would promptly be thinking of nothing but you!