It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I agree it shouldn't, but it wasn't Al Gore that brought it to politics and the irrational hatred and credit lent to him is just that... irrational. Both sides would do well to forget his name, everyone else has.
While announcing new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said “unchecked” carbon pollution prior to his administration’s efforts to raise fuel economy standards “was having severe impacts on our weather.”
“Carbon pollution was going unchecked, which was having severe impacts on our weather,”
Obama: ‘Unchecked’ Carbon Pollution Had ‘Severe Impacts on Our Weather’
But, Stumason, I am not sure but that it's too late to do anything. The melting tundra permafrost is irreversible, IMO.
reply to post by bbracken677
Sorry, I haven't seen the film. What lies did he tell?
And I always thought is was because some giant unseeable hand keeps messing with the thermostadt, capital city of robonia! It's too hot. It's too cold. the planets warming. the planets cooling! Ughh! I hate taking the human race camping !
edit on 2182014 by tencap77 because: spellin
I'm really tired of people thinking that Global Warming means that it gets hotter everywhere on the planet, all at once.
Ismail, I hope you know (you should) that science is never settled by a majority vote.
The 'pause', and the inability of climate models to simulate observed trends, is discussed in chapter 9 (Box 9.2) of the last IPCC report. Only three of the papers referenced within the section are model-data comparsions, with a specific focus on either, the last two decades or the overall ability of climate models to simulate prolonged periods without surface warming.
None of the studies above supports the IPCC's statement, 'that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series', two of the papers directly contradict claims that model simulations of surface temperature trends are evidence for man-made global warming.
The observed record shows a very similar distribution to the 20 th century simulations, especially considering that only one version of the observed record was used in this analysis, adding credence to the conclusions in the IPCC AR4 that the observed warming since 1950 is very likely due to increasing greenhouse gases.
The Doran & Zimmerman study was done for a master's thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that followed the study reported on 2 of the 9 questions. The study found, in part, that 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels", and that 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to those survey questions implies that debate on the "role played by human activity is largely nonexistent" amongst climate experts.
The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE. That study's sample included 903 scientists counted as CE ("convinced by the evidence"). Scientists were assumed to be CE when in the list of those credited by the IPCC as having done research utilized by AR4 Working Group I. Such an assumption resulted in a list of 619 names, which, after adjusting for duplication, became a total of 903 when also adding in those who signed one of several statements supporting the IPCC.
Do I really come across as that thick ?
Pause in the acceleration does not mean a pause in the rise, as this graph clearly shows.
I am curious as to where you found that statement in the studies that you linked.
Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis.
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.
This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal.
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
The weather is no different than it has ever been. Only fools believe climate change is happening. Some years are hotter than usual, just as some years are colder than usual. It happens...