posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet
Phage has it backwards. It is up to the IPCC to show the CO2 from humans is causing a climate catastrophe. So far the CO2 has continued to increase
but the temperature has not. There is no tropical Hot Spot. The Arctic is not Ice Free and MAY be recovering. Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Cover is
increasing. October Graph
And just in case you were wondering, Record Cold beat 'Global Warming' for mid-summer (July) in the USA.
This graphic shows carbon dioxide’s contribution is LOGRITHMIC!
This is a close-up:
This is a bar chart converting 'Forcing' into temperature response to make the concept easier to understand for the layman.
Most of the effect of CO2 is in the first 20PPM, by 400PPM CO2 has shot its wad and is no longer a "Big Player" in climate.
Let me restate the actual situation.
1. The scientific Null Hypothesis
is natural factors have caused earth's climate to change for
billions of years and those same natural factor's are still at work.
You do not have to prove this null hypothesis nor do you have to quantify and identify all those factors although some (very slow) progress is being
2. All energy on earth comes from the sun with the minor exception of that from the hot interior of the earth.
3. The IPCC has proposed a second hypothesis. Human released CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming.
This is the IPCC MANDATE:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human
induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation. www.ipcc-wg2.gov...
From a former IPCC scientist. An explanation of what is happening.
Flat For 200 Months
Mann, Jones et al, in a nutshell. From Judith Curry:
Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire
framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal,
and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international
science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.
Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were.
However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the
normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively
unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has
become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
RSS is a satellite temperature data set but not the UAH dataset from Dr. Roy Spencer and John Christy.
of temperature vs CO2 is interesting because it shows how uniform
the temperature is during our present interglacial, the holocene despite changes in CO2 levels. It also shows the current temperature is not
following CO2. Also note at ~ year 150,000 that CO2 increased while temperature continued to decrease. There are other such reverses if you look.