Hillary Clinton Has 'Hard Hitting' Climate Change Chat with Harrison Ford
Bill calls on feds to address health impacts of climate change
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 05/19/2013 5:25:54 PM PDT by presidio9
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.
But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.
An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response.
Transient nature
Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.
Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).
But in this new analysis,
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
[[Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’]]
In other words, the climate is following 1000’s of years worth of cyclical warmign and cooling trends- gee- whoda thunk it?
But once again we see ‘climatologists’ ‘predicting’ a new direction when the wind changes direction and claimign they were right all along - no matter which way the wind blows, these Hindsight ‘scientists’ are covered- it’s all man’s fault-
“How exactly does the climate slowdown?”
It must be like a bad cartridge. The trigger is pulled, but it hasn’t gone bang yet.
Does it fire? Does it eventually fire, but only go an inch down the barrel?
Or does it never fire, and you just throw it away?
Leni
” It would be interesting to see if there was a message of record (email or other directive) that came from on high to push this and I bet there was. But the fun would be to expose it.”
I don’t think they need to send messages from on high - they do something even more effective (from their point of view) - they put true believer as announcers and let them do their things. Similar to terrorist cells.
We must be getting close to “Global Cooling” caused by road dust and garden tools.
Turns out that data was very, very, very wrong. US emissions (which make up 90% of N Am pop) are now down to the lowest levels since 1993.
I am sure the media and schools will col it with their propaganda....
not
That’s incorrect. Based on the NASA report, CO2 plays a much more important part in preventing the Sun from raising temperatures on Earth than previously known The other question is given the greater percentage and effectiveness of water as a so-called greenhouse gas, why have the scammers focused on a relatively insignificant gas, CO2. The answer to that is obvious. CO2 was looked upon as the next best thing for diverting money from the private sector to government. Fortunately the research continued and CO2 has been proven not to be the fearsome planet changing boogey man as was widely promoted.
The slowdown in solar activity kicked in around 2007-8. It is still too early to see much effect from this. As usual there is thermal inertia from the ocean, remaining ocean warmth from the high solar period (up to the 90’s) has been delaying the impact of lower solar activity.
Do you have a link for the NASA report? The focus on CO2 made the models simpler. Considering that they don't model weather, it's hard for them to judge the effects of solar and terrestrial factors on climate. Specifically, if water vapor is evenly distributed (fewer storms and/or weaker storms, stronger polar jet, less meridional flow, etc) then there will be global warming. Conversely having more and stronger storms (worldwide), weak jet with blocking (e.g. causing heat waves or flooding) produces global cooling. None of that can be modeled without modeling the small scale convective processes, and the climate models do not do that (even weather models suck at that). Thus they basically do a large scale energy balance model so things like CO2 get undo emphasis and water vapor is ignored (i.e. they keep constant RH without any justification).
Don’t buy that premise. Someway somehow however seemimgly innocuous there’s a talking point outline and NPR is on message in every show. In the case of globull warming worming its way into every NPR production, comedy, music, “news”, pets,health, you name it the threads are there.
The recent NASA report was based on an analysis of satellite data. It showed up about a month ago and then seemed to get deep sixed since it was obviously fatal to the “CO2 as sure death argument” mongers. I’ll look for it later.
The slight warming detected from the 1970s until 1998 was proof positive of man made global warming, even though the same slight increase was detected in Mars, Neptune, Triton and Pluto.
The sun cycles couldn't have anything to do with climate change.
That is why Global Climate Change™ is so much better than Global Cooling or Global Warming ever were.
Is it warmer today than average? It is because of Global Climate Change.™
Is it cooler today than average? It is because of Global Climate Change.™
Is it wetter, dryer, windier, less windy? It doesn't matter! Whatever the weather happens to be, it is because of Global Climate Change.™
Of course, it is all Bush's fault. Bush and those damned SUVs. Womyn and minorities will be hardest hit. The only solution is to tax and spend more.
Not exactly sure what report you're talking about, but it was my understanding that CO2's role in climate regulation had to do with its ability to absorb infrared radiation reflected back from the surface that had previously been heated up by the sun, not by relecting anything itself per se. CO2 is transparent.
In any case, the finding you are referring to really doesn't pertain to the conversation we were having.
CO2 is absolutely necessary to protect the Earth by reflecting most of the Sun’s energy back into space
"More important" does not translate into "most."
It’s been shown that 1. CO2 is not the threat claimed by those confusing CO2 with true pollutants and 2. CO2 is much more beneficial to life on Earth than previously known.
The global warming/change scare mongering took a fatal hit.
No argument there. And, as anyone who has lived in an arid climate can tell you, “greenhouse gases” are actually essential to life on earth. They keep things from freezing when the lights go out at night, a la the dark side of Mercury, which is actually one of the coldest places in the solar system. I learned this first hand when I moved to Tucson and lived in the foothills. The temperature could be in the 90’s in the afternoon and I could find myself scraping ice off my car the next morning on my way to work.
Hillary Clinton Has 'Hard Hitting' Climate Change Chat with Harrison Ford
Bill calls on feds to address health impacts of climate change
Global Warming on Free Republic
Now that’s the climate trend of the teens! Whatever is going to happen, there’s proof it is happening, and requires lots of money to fix, or else we’re all doomed to something or other happening. Change you can believe in (facts? we don’t need no stinking facts!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.